November 10, 2005
Torture, the Law, and the Executive
I don’t support a policy of torture, but I don’t support the McCain Amendment either. The latter would undermine the Executive unnecessarily by introducing legal processes into a matter more properly left to executive discretion.
Wars are complicated things in which numerous judgment calls must be made at every level of command. The executive rightfully has a great deal of inherent authority to conduct operations. I do not favor the McCain Amendments for the same reason that I would not favor Congressional legislation mandating that our military uses Napoleonic tactics, conducts an invasion on a particular day, or should conduct torture under judicial oversight (as Alan Dershowitz has argued).
Torture degrades the torturer as well as the victim. It creates a race of monsters living in one's society and tends to erode the esprit de corps of the military in a liberal democracy--an esprit based in part upon the moral superiority of such a military over most of its opponents. The case for torture is most often made in the instance of the "ticking time bomb," the individual who, if tortured, can reveal information that will save millions of lives. But the problem of ticking time bombs is that they do not reveal themselves as such. One never knows if a particular detainee is a ticking time bomb. Torture becomes addictive to an organization that resorts to it on the principle that no stone should be left unturned.
Torture should not be permitted in military manuals or otherwise. It is not permitted today in military intelligence manuals, for instance. There is presently no lacuna in military or CIA doctrine requiring an anti-torture statute, nor a complicated torture manual, complete with Alan Dershowitz's seal of approval. But, there should not be a law specifically regulating the military and CIA's interrogation techniques. The McCain Amendment as written goes beyond torture. It could open to judicial review basic psychological pressure techniques that are time tested, cause no permanent harm, and work effectively. Some sleep deprivation, threats, psychological pressure, and techniques of disorientation are appropriate in the war on terror. Not only do they work, but they are controled and lack the cruelty of genuine torture. I would not want to see judicial or congressional meddling in these areas, and that's what the McCain law would create. Further, it would open up the door to more vexatious interventions by other branches of government in the preeminent executive task, waging war.
But what of torture? Is it never necessary? Perhaps it is, but the law should not say so, as it represents an across-the-board community judgment, that is, a generally applicable rule. It is something that we approve wholeheartedly and endorse. Such an awful decision to torture should be made, if ever, by the military interrogator or operative on the ground, aware of the potential legal consequences, and steeped in the military's traditions of respect for the law of war. That is, as a true last resort. This is why an executive pardon power exists. Certain acts should not be socially condoned and should most often be punished. But under the right circumstances, they can also be forgiven. Far from requiring prior legal approval, such acts can be deemed necessary only when undertaken against the letter of the law. Any other approach would make their use too frequent and too degrading, both to the participants and to the broader society--a society whose moral authority would be undermined by any formal permission for torture.
In spite of these prohibitions, the operations of the law should not be too rigid. Particularly in war time, a broad use of the pardon power prevents the law and its mechanical application from inflicting too much injustice on those making these touch decisions. Without the escape valve of a pardon, such prosecutions would undermine respect for the law for the opposite reason, an absence of mercy towards those placed in impossible situations by events.
Chris,
Torture is banned by our signature on the Geneva Convention. It’s not a matter of degrees. It is either wrong or it’s not wrong.
By using it, we lost all high ground in the court of public opinion and instead are the same as Al Queda. Without our credibility in the world community our cause is severly hurt; this bill could be the first small step back into the community.
Posted by: Dave at November 10, 2005 04:04 PMWe’re not even close to Al Qaeda even if we inflicted the most greusome tortures on Al Qaeda detainees. Their goals are evil. Ours are defensive. It’s not right to torture, but do not confuse ends and means.
Geneva does not apply to Al Qaeda detainees, other than in the very limited guarantee of “humane” treatment. Further, the executive decides without judicial review how to implement our treaty obligations.
Posted by: Roach at November 10, 2005 04:08 PMChris, an excellent, cogent post as usual. I respectfully disagree with you in that I feel like the executive has too much latitude for action at the present time and has consistently overstepped it’s boundaries in recent history. I find some of the recent revelations about things like rendition of prisoner’s to other nations and these “black operations prisons” appalling…
We need to have more exposure to the tactical operations of our government, not less. I do not want my government, who works for me to behave in a fashion that I would find reprehensible. Torture is reprehensible as you so eloquently described in your post. If the executive branch of government wants the “latitude” to apply torture, then I want my representatives in congress to be able to apply limitations on the executive’s actions.
Posted by: Dennis at November 10, 2005 04:09 PM Bush is not going to win the hearts and minds of anyone. Torture is Bush’s plan, not Cheney. Cheney has no authority to do anything, to initiate anything without Bush approval.
Bush could not fight a war under the same rules all wars have been fought. He needed the Patriot Act to short cut invading Iraq and allow torture. Why didn’t FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon use such a shortcut? They had integrity and faith in our armed forces to be able to fight any war with any restrictions Geneva or the UN or Congress placed upon it. Not this President, he has to cheat his way to any advantage. I find this extremely offensive to all those who have served this country under the rule of law. I feel sorry for the current military as they will likely be shamed for participating in authorized torture.
This is a disgrace to the concept of liberty and human rights.
I find the lame excuse that terrorists are somehow worse than Nazis really offensive, and somehow justify this un-American torture plan.
Regardless of how much ranting the GOP and neocons do about this issue, the American voters are offended by this lame excuse of a President.
I hope that the Executive branch is furher restricted, permanently in the future, from any attempt to mislead and mislabel threats, for the enactment of loopholes making it easier for lazy Presidents to wage war.
The war powers act has to be taken from the President and given to a 2/3 approval of the House and Senate. No President should be able to do, with such disregard of law, that this one has.
Chris,
1) There is no “good” torture or “bad” torture.
Only torture.
2) America has, since the signing of the Geneva Convention, taken the stance that torture is barbaric and not in the best interest of a civilized nation to use for many reasons.
3) Why would we leave G.W. or any other President with the option to use a tool America has always found to be abhorrent.
4) We are America, we’re the good guys.
What do you do when you’re signed on to the Geneva Convention and your enemy isn’t? In other words, if you think it’s wrong and your enemy doesn’t, then who’s the better person? More importantly, how do you combat that enemy?
Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 04:57 PMChris
Torture is a hard word to define in reallity.
For instance there was a charge that an interrogator at Gitmo was a female with her breasts more unconvered than covered and in a mini skirt. Was this torture? I believe it is not torture. That is physological warfare, which is not illegal. So where does the activity become torture under any kind of definition. There will be many postings on this site that will vary as to a specific action being torture or not torture. That is why the McCain bill is not a good bill, also. Thanks for the argument put forth.
Surely it’s a stretch to call the basic interrogation techniques used by police around the world—bright lights, sleep deprivation, ruses—torture. Someone said there’s no good or bad torture. OK, so is it torture whenever an Al Qaeda detainee calls something torture? This is an endless cycle of debate, and the effectiveness of any intelligence gathering which would be severely undermined by any involvement of the legislative or judicial branches in calling some techniques torture or not through their rarefied perspective.
As for the analogies of other wars, all of those, with the exception of Vietnam, were conventional wars against conventional enemies. Further, various forms of interrogation were widely employed in Vietnam that are not even approved now, such as water-boarding.
For all of the pro process people, did Clinton’s ‘99 War against Kosovo without congresional approval cause anyone concern?
And, as for the PATRIOT ACT, it pales in comparison to the deprivations of the internment and security statutes of WWII. Learn some history. THey interred over 800,000 Americans and aliens, including many Germans and Italians.
Posted by: Roach at November 10, 2005 05:05 PMPosted by Roach:
For all of the pro process people, did Clinton’s ‘99 War against Kosovo without congresional approval cause anyone concern?
And, as for the PATRIOT ACT, it pales in comparison to the deprivations of the internment and security statutes of WWII. Learn some history. THey interred over 800,000 Americans and aliens, including many Germans and Italians.
______________________________________
Not to mention the Alien Sedition Act in WWI; that was way worse than the Patriot Act!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 05:13 PMLet me reiterate my nuanced position. I do not believe in or support torture. I am in fact opposed to reflexive calls, mostly from the right, for its use. That said, I don’t think the right way to address it is with court intervention and overbroad legislation. Torture is already illegal and prohibited by statute and the UCMJ. The executive should honor these commitments and punish wrongdoers. It should also pardon wrongdoers in truly extraordinary cases of necessity. Any prosecutions, statutes, and military/CIA rules should distinguish between psychological and minor pressure and true torture, which the McCain Amendment does not do. Further, any discussion of torture should distinguish the goals of any such procedure—to protect innocent Americans—and the dastardly goals of our enemies. Such means would be wrong, but it can’t be denied they’d be in the service of a worthy cause. No moral equivalence arguments should even enter this discussion. The enemy is not eveil because he tortures, though he does. He’s evil because he aims to kill our countrymen in the service of enslaving his own countrymen and coreligionists.
The PATRIOT ACT has nothing to do with torture. It expands police powers to search certain records and detain certain witnesses and illegal aliens. It has nothing to do with torture, the military, or the CIA’s actions abroad.
Posted by: Roach at November 10, 2005 05:23 PMJust goes to show that Republicans support torture. I must admit I am not surprised so many in this column share Al Queda’s philosophy that the end justifies the means. If Liberals should go to Canada cause we don’t like it here, Conservatives should go to Syria or Russia where they would be at home.
Posted by: Aldous at November 10, 2005 07:39 PMRoach:
Very nicely done.
The basic thing that McCain’s amendment does not touch on is the definition of torture. As tomh showed, interrogation can be difficult yet not be considered torture. Sleep deprivation as an example is a well used interrogation technique. At some point, it would cross into the line of torture, but at other points, it would simply be a means of inducing the POW to divulge information.
As for the Geneva Convention, I’d submit that it is a bit out of date. Consider Article 31, which states “No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” That phrase alone makes nearly every interrogation ‘torture’ since most interrogations have some degree of coercion attached. Coercion, of course can be positive (give us information and we will give you X) or negative (give us information and we will take away X).
I will unequivocally state that I am against torture (though Dershowitz’s ticking bomb scenario makes sense to me). But too often, that which is NOT torture is defined as torture by those trying to make a point where there is none to be made.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 10, 2005 08:22 PMAldous, would you care to back up your charge that Republicans endorse torture. You’re speaking without any support, particularly in this column.
Posted by: Roach at November 10, 2005 08:24 PM“More importantly, how do you combat that enemy?”
More importantly than even that, how do you know if you if you won?
Posted by: Rocky at November 10, 2005 08:28 PMThe United States is the only country followed the Geneva Convention in the last 3 or 4 wars it’s been in. The other side has engaged in tourture, but no one seems to worry about that. It’s just when the U.S. can be made to look bad that the media with their liberial pals get all hot and bothered about it.
I’m against tourture of ANY kind and don’t believe that we should be involed in it. And I believe that ANY U.S. personnel that engages in it should be severly punished. However, just taking the word of POWs and making like it’s common practice is a great disservice to our troops. But then liberials don’t like the military anyway.
I checked the link that Roach provided to the admendment. The first part is confusing. If I’m reading it right it says that POWs cann’t be tourtured but suspected criminals can.
Here is a list of the people who voted against the McCain amendment:
Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
All Republicans. Very conservative Republicans. Conservative Republican VP Cheney also opposed it.
Note the complete absence of Democrats from this list. Note the complete absence of liberals from this list.
Opposed to torture? If so, you might want to rethink your party affiliation.
phx8
that is terrific spin on a subject.
Just a second, I fell out of my chair laughing.
Then I was laughing so hard it brought tears to my eyes; I had trouble seeing what I was typing.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE, WHEW!!!
Roach:
I suggest you read what you posted. Torture is torture. There is no “Little Torture” or any “Buts..”. You either refute torture completely or you support it. Considering the number of lawyers in this column asking what “is” is, I would say you all support torture. You are just not men enough to say it plain.
Posted by: Aldous at November 10, 2005 11:10 PM The only thing that has kept the “detainees” from being treated as POW’s is the very word the president has chosen to call them. Detainees. There is a war in Iraq, the world knows it, we know it, the president has called it that. We should be following the Geneva Convention.
What has utterly failed here is the Congress. Bush is a foul and disgusting human to want to torture to win a war against fear, or terror, itself. McCain seeks to make up a bit here on this. He should be majority leader. Frist is letting Bush have carte blanche when it comes to congressional oversight. The republican party fails the conservative when it fails to look at itself. Mr. Roach’s argument for executive discretion fails due to Congressional oversight. The framer’s never intended what he has, said carte blanche, due only to a patsy of a majority senate leader.
By the way, the framers liked the french too.
you have to remember, that McCain is a Democrate in reality.
Posted by: steve at November 11, 2005 07:52 AMbrian,
Come on ,tell us what you really feel.
Posted by: Dave at November 11, 2005 08:11 AMThe basic thing that McCain’s amendment does not touch on is the definition of torture.
Yes, it does.
No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
That’s pretty clear, JBOD.
Excellent article, Roach. I actually agree with you a little. I would have rather seen provisions for stronger oversight of the executive branch by Congress and the courts on this issue than a law that just reaffirms what should already be enforced.
On the other hand, it’s a clear bi-partisan rebuke of President Bush’s handling of his military and intelligence services, so I can’t complain too much.
And I’d dearly love to see Bush veto the defense spending bill this amendment is riding on. Just the thought of that particular irony gets me chuckling. ;)
Posted by: American Pundit at November 11, 2005 08:27 AMAP:
“the McCain amendment is purposely vague on what is actually allowed. Is sleep deprivation “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”? What about sensory deprivation or yelling? It doesn’t say.
Instead, the amendment uses euphemisms like “inhuman” and “degrading” to gloss over any controversial political ground.” Washington Times editorial
I’m against torture, as I’ve said. But a solid definition is required. You tell me——is sleep deprivation considered torture by the Field Manual? At what point does making a detainee physically uncomfortable become torture? Are we allowed to coerce in ANY manner, or are we simply to provide POW/detainees three squares, a roof over their heads and leave them be?
The funny thing here is that NO ONE has been supporting torture. ITs just that the left, in its hurry to SOUND good, is not solving the problem. They are just muddying the waters.
AP, I’ll ask you to specifically answer my questions about sleep deprivation. Show me the definition of torture in unambiguous terms. Show me what is allowed and what is not—but don’t show it in terms of statements that don’t make it clear, as you did above.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 11, 2005 08:41 AMjbod;
The issue is not “at what point does interrogation become torture,” the point is “do we allow torture”?
AP pointed out that behavior is limited
any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
What is listed in the USAFMII is subject to legal review. Will that review limit be limited to “no torture” or will “torture is OK when (…)” be the test?
And, how is asking for definition and limitation “muddying the waters”? Not every answer is already known.
Posted by: Dave at November 11, 2005 10:36 AMTo break a person’s will is to break their reliability along with it. People become suggestible under torture. Suggestibility like Hypnotic suggestibility. Just like people under hypnosis, they become vulnerable to even the way a person asks questions. You muddy the very thing you want from them: meaningful information.
There are other ways to get around even the defenses of the most stubborn. You can get them angry, get them sad, play on ignorance, play as if you’re ignorant. Nobody says we got to be honest. Nobody says we can’t put them under the third degree. What we have to do is bend their will to ours, not break it. If we keep them intact, we can preserve the pattern of information they have inside their heads, preserve that important cargo of meaning.
I believe the torture laws should outlaw specific practices outright, then describe the character of practices permitted and not permitted, with the courts and administrators able to work out the details to fit practices legislators haven’t thought of.
We do need to be the good guys. We should not fight fire with fire, but fire with water. Anything else is a failure of both character and imagination.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2005 10:52 AMThe United States is the only country followed the Geneva Convention in the last 3 or 4 wars it’s been in. The other side has engaged in tourture, but no one seems to worry about that. It’s just when the U.S. can be made to look bad that the media with their liberial pals get all hot and bothered about it.
The United States is the only country that I’ve lived in. As such, it is the only country whose leaders claim to represent me, which is why I care more about the use of torture by the US than by Al Queda, Iraq, the boogeyman, or anyone else.
As Americans, we enjoy a great many rights that others in other countries don’t have. We refer to them as “inalienable human rights”, which implies that we have them because we are HUMAN, not because we are AMERICAN, and that our government recognizes that. If that is the case, then we shouldn’t torture/interrogate non-Americans in any way that wouldn’t be allowed on American citizens by their own government.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 10:58 AMIs a definition of torture in one extreme, “the solicitation of information from an individual whom is otherwise disinclined to volunteer it, by using methods that are against the person’s will”?
If so, the use of truth serums, hypnosis, etc. would be torture. Certainly not in the sense that pain is administered but that a foreign substance or procedure is employed which, would undoubtedly be against their will.
Do we abhor what we refer to as “torture” because a) it is inhumane or 2) more likely that we simply don’t want the enemy to have the information.
Why does the Geneva Convention not instruct prisoners to simply “tell them everything they want to know”.
Posted by: steve smith at November 11, 2005 11:10 AMsteve smith:
My answer is (a).
“Do as I say not as I do” is a hypocracy that weakens the speaker.
Why does the Geneva Convention not instruct prisoners to simply “tell them everything they want to knowâ€.
Two reasons, I would guess. First, because most prisoners wouldn’t comply. And second, do you think the US would sign a document that required captured US soldiers to tell our enemies everything they wanted to know?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 11:14 AMGeneva allows honorable POWs of signatories to give limited information. It’s reciprocal in nature. Unlawful combatnants, however, who are non-state actors, nonsignatories, and noncompliant with the rules requird to give them POW status (i.e., uniforms, a chain of command, adherence to the law of war) have no such right not to be treated like common criminals, coercively interrogated, no rights to avoid forced labor, and other privileges of POWs.
Not everyone gets to be a POW. It’s a privileged status and requires certain acts to be done to guarantee that status. Geneva and the law of war are clear on this point.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 11:22 AMRoach,
Ok… so, if they’re not POWs, then they’re criminals, and aren’t protected by the Geneva Convention. So… do we allow criminals to be tortured in the US?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 11:25 AM… or, more importantly, do we allow suspected criminals, who haven’t been tried, to be tortured?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 11:26 AMStephen Daugherty,
I believe the torture laws should outlaw specific practices outright, then describe the character of practices permitted and not permitted, with the courts and administrators able to work out the details to fit practices legislators haven’t thought of.We do need to be the good guys. We should not fight fire with fire, but fire with water. Anything else is a failure of both character and imagination.
Well spoken! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 11:36 AM“Why does the Geneva Convention not instruct prisoners to simply â´¥ll them everything they want to know⮼/p>”
“Two reasons, I would guess. First, because most prisoners wouldn’t comply. And second, do you think the US would sign a document that required captured US soldiers to tell our enemies everything they wanted to know?”
No the US would not sign such a document much like I would think other countries have not signed the document attesting to the fact that they will not use torture
Posted by: steve smith at November 11, 2005 11:41 AMBy definition, torture is to cause pain and anguish to the body or mind of a fellow human being. In the past, we as American’s rejected not only that idea as monstrous, but the very idea that we ourselves would be the kind of people who were actually capable of being tormentors and torturers.
Due to the actions of this totally insane and wildly ineffective president and his administration, those two ideas of who we are and what we will do to other people seem to be up for grabs among those on the right side of the political isle. And the most ridiculous and laughable thing about this is that you’ve tried so very hard to paint yourselves as the side with “strong moral values”!
The sad yet obvious truth is, those of you who are debating what the definition of torture should be are losing, or have already lost your morality. Because if one is closely examining and trying to ascertain just how far we as a country can and should go in inflicting pain and anguish upon a fellow human, yet somehow not consider it torture, or the people of our country torturers, you have quite completely lost your way.
In my opinion, this shared mindset of immoderacy, indecency, and immorality renders the leaders on the Right at the highest levels (and anyone who follows or agrees with them, regarding this topic) totally unfit to lead this nation in war, or in peace.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2005 11:41 AMChris
I think a large part of your premise is wrong.
“I don’t support torture, but I don’t support the McCain Amendment either. The Latter would undermine the Executive unnecessarily by introducing a legal process into a matter more properly left to executive discretion.”
“The executive rightfully has a great deal of inherent authority to conduct operations.”
“I would not want to see judicial or congressional meddling in these areas…”
Let me refer you to the US Constitution Article 1, Section 8.
“The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprise, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
That seems pretty clear, even to those who would advocate a “living constitution.” Congress is not “meddling” in Executive authority via The McCain Amendment, but rather exercising its rightful authority. Congress did not abdicate this authority to the executive by authorizing the war.
Torture doesn’t work. It surrenders the moral high ground, produces unreliable results and puts our own troops at further risk. My opinion is that if your position is too nuanced to fit on a bumper sticker it needs to be re-thought. Perhaps if we all rethink our position we can distill it down to something pithy like, “Torture is Bad” or “Torture Logic Not Prisoners.”
This in not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is about who we are as a people. Let me leave everyone with this thought 90 - 9.
They’re not criminals or POWs. They’re unlawful combatants. They may be kept for the duration of hostilities without the full protections of POWs. They can also be tried at any time for war crimes, including the war crime of unlawful belligerency which allows a death sentence.
As for the torture issue, let’s flip the question: what right do these detainees have not to cooperate fully? POWs don’t have to, but why should these folks who are part of an unlawful organization, without uniforms, without a chain of command, with no adherence to the law of war, and none of the other indicia that allow them any better treatment than being shot after a short trial.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 12:12 PMWhile my present position is anti-torture (defined as inflicting pain to get information).
IMO all we have done by using truth serum, etc. is replace the lead pipe with a needle. It is still torture in that it is designed to extract information from some one who is otherwise unwilling to give it.
Posted by: steve smith at November 11, 2005 12:22 PMRoach,
First, I consider the “unlawful combatant” argument to be bogus to begin with. If we’re fighting a WAR, then any PRISONERS we collect during that WAR are, by definition, PRISONERS-OF-WAR. If we’re not fighting a war, then we’re simply executing a police action against a criminal organization, and those we capture are SUSPECTS until tried, and are then CRIMINALS.
Second, and more importantly, they are human beings. I’m not talking about POWs’ rights, or criminals’ rights, or “unlawful combatants’” rights — I’m talking about HUMAN RIGHTS. No matter how you classify them, or what loopholes you find, they are still human beings, and human beings have a right to not be tortured.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 12:25 PMRob,
Excellent distinction. That’s exactly what I think, although you have phrased it better than I could.
Roach,
You said
For all of the pro process people, did Clinton’s ‘99 War against Kosovo without congresional approval cause anyone concern?Clinton sent troops at NATO’s request. And it might interest you to know that candidate George Bush agreed with Clinton that Congress didn’t need to be involved.
Look, this is really simple. We all know the rules of behavior. We learned them as children. Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, tell the truth, etc. The Bible said it best: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. And the rules that we all learned as children are equally applicable to us as a nation. Torture is wrong. Period. It doesn’t matter how noble your goals are. It doesn’t matter what your exucse is - if you do something bad, that make YOU bad. If you proclaim that you are a “force for good” when you’re not behaving in that manner, then you are destroying your credibility.
Victory in a war comes from defeating your enemies, not by creating more of them. So the war on terror is as much about winning the hearts and minds of the world as it is about military victories. Condoning torture will drive more people into the waiting arms of our enemies. That makes the war on terror HARDER to win, not easier.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 11, 2005 12:51 PMRob, you are just wrong. Do some reading on the subject. There are lots of good law review articles on this subject, including one at this link: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592.
Bush did not make up the concept of “unlawful combatants.” Not all prisoners are “prisoners of war,” nor have they ever been. Read the Partisan Cases from Nuremberg, for example. I can’t go attack a military installation tomorrow and claim to be a prisoner of war. Further, our criminal justice system and the constitutional rights it entails do not extend overseas to a military action against an unlawful combatant organization like Al Qaeda and the noncitizen detainees found and kept overseas.
We can hold these people for the duration of hostilities like any combatants, but we need not provide them with POW status because they have not earned it.
Geneva and the rights of POWs are not just a broad grant for everyone; they’re a limited grant for those that comply with Geneva and are signatories. The traditional law of war does not recognize full POW status for unlawful combatants. Neither does Geneva. These are not loopholes, these are preconditions for the privilege of POW status. These requirements are in place to incentivize combatants to follow the law of war. If the POW privileges are given out to anyone and everyone, then any combatant would have every incentive to wear civiliain clothes and violate other laws of war.
Your position would give unlawful combatants more rights than those who follow the law of war that are entitled to POW status. Both groups can ultimately be tried for war crimes, but your position would require an immediate trial for the unlawful combatants, whereas POWs would be permitted to be detained for the duration of hostilities and tried thereafter, a la Nuremberg.
Keeping detainees from a war for the duration of hostilities is a military, nonpunitive act to keep them off the battlefield. That’s why they don’t get trials now, any more than traditional POWs do. When they’re later tried before military tribunals, they’ll have all the rights required under international law, which are far short of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution for citizens in peacetime law enforcement. These tribunal procedures were used at Nuremberg, against Japanese war criminals, against the Nazi saboteurs discussed in In re Quirin, and by other nations’ in their wars. (For example, America has a right to a jury trial but many nations don’t. There’s no reason that America has to extend peculiarly American rights like these to foreigners detained as combatants and tried for war crimes). All that’s required is a process involving a neutral factfinder, and that includes a neutral military fact finder like a JAG.
The ridiculous GITMO critics would apparently have the Al Qaeda guys standing around the yard like the guys in Hogan’s Heros. That’s what POW status would require, along with no right on our part to interrogate. Good luck winning the war that way.
We’re dealing with a twilight enemy, somewhere between a criminal gang and an army. The law of war has little regard for such organizations, and we’re certainly not required to tie our hands behind our back to prosecute the war. This doesn’t permit torture, but it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t do anything to influence their decision to cooperate. Most important, it means we need not avoid interrogation because of some putative POW status on their part.
There’s plenty of good literature out there like the AF Law Review article above and the various pieces by Jeremy Rivkin. Law takes study; go study it some time.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 02:08 PMThe Republicans were wrong to lay down on Kosovo. Bush at least has full statutory authorization for the war against Al Qaeda.
As for this: Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, tell the truth, etc. The Bible said it best: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
These rules have little application in law enforcement and war. One kills in war. One lies in interrogations and investigations. One must sometimes steal things to conduct a military operation. You’re using the rules of peace time and civilian life to guide a war policy. You’ll always lose that way. There are limits, but they’re not the same. And those limits are particularly inapossite when dealing with a dishonorable and unlawful enemy like Al Qaeda.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 02:11 PMRoach,
I commend your knowledge of law in this case; however, once again, you’re missing the point.
Proof that torture of specific individuals is LEGAL doesn’t change the fact that it’s WRONG! Human rights are not granted by the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention, or a military court — they are “endowed by [the] Creator”. In this country, our rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution, but they are not GRANTED by it.
Torture may not violate any American or international law, but it violates the spirit under which this country was founded.
I do have one question, though. Those who are not in a nation’s uniform, with a chain of command, etc., are considered “unlawful combatants”, right? So, for reference, what nation ARE we at war with now, anyway? What government are we currently fighting a war against? I know we WERE at war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and Hussein’s government in Iraq, but neither of those exist anymore. Who are we at war against now? Or is the war over?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 02:48 PMRoach,
You referenced “the war against Al Qaeda”. Can we really declare war against a non-nation entity? Is there a precident for that? If so, that makes the POW rules completley useless. All you have to do is declare war on an ORGANIZATION within a nation, instead of the nation itself, and suddenly everyone against you is an “unlawful combatant”.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 02:52 PMI think the main difference (pro-) vs (anti-) torture is PRIORITIES.
If your priority is to be a proper, moral, upstanding individual, you are against torture.
If your priority is to let the gov’t do whatever they think necessary in this war, you are for torture.
Let’s not speak in abstractions. I don’t believe in torture, and torture is illegal under US and probably international law too.
That said, is it torture to:
Deny someone a Koran
Tell him he’ll never see his family again
Keep him awake for 24 hours
Not feed him culturally sensitive meals
Feed him bread and water only (allowed for serviceman’s NJP under UCMJ)
Offer him better conditions, food, freedom if he talks
Yelling
Bright lights and loud noises
Isolation
Shaking
Use of a straight jacket and claustrophobia-inducing restraints
It’s for every one of these things a matter of degree, no? None are allowed, incidentally, for POWs—except maybe bread and water punishment and isolation. But it’s a real stretch to call most of these techniques torture, unless taken to an extreme.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 03:22 PMThere’s plenty of precedent, including the war against the Barbary Pirates and many of the Indian Wars.
In a true war with a lawful combatant the enemy is the army of a particular nation. There’ not a nonstate actor under any definition.
Even a nonstate actor could get POW status if it adhered to the law of war, in the manner, for example, of the Polish Home Army in WWII. The Home Army used uniforms and a chain of command during the ‘44 Battle of Warsaw and was given POW status by General von dem Bach-Zalewski in a rare showing of German good sense and humanity.
The key is not whether the war is declared or who it’s declared against but the status and conduct of the enemy. Here Al Qaeda’s conduct is consistently atrocious, starting with their hijacking of civilian airliners to attack the US on 9/11. Have you forgotten?
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 03:26 PMRoach,
I would consider some of those things torture under certain conditions, but not all of them. But that’s just the point. We don’t have a clear definition of what torture is. That’s why we need to (a) define the limits between interrogation and torture, and (b) forbid crossing that line.
What’s wrong with that?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 03:31 PMRoach;
A simple question:
Which is more important; (a) being allowed to torture a prisoner even though it’s wrong (b) remain a moral person true to one’s beliefs that torture is wrong or(c) torture is a morally acceptable behavior?
Posted by: Dave at November 11, 2005 03:43 PMLiberals, the kings of nuance, now want a bright line rule. But bright line and overbroad rules are inappropriate in this area, especially in the form of the McCain Amendment. It’s important not to torture, but it’s also important to preserve an effective interrogation procedure that is not undermined by the courts, by congressional intervention, and by unnecessary adherence to Geneva protections that do not apply to unlawful combatants. In other words, it’s important to go up to the line, but not cross it. And the executive should have the authority to make that call. It’s more important that we win this war than it is that Al Qaeda detainees are sitting cozy 24/7. McCain’s Amendment and those that would grant AQ detainees unnecessary and unmandated POW protections would do just that.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 03:47 PMTorture is already illegal and forbidden to be committed by any national of the US, within or outside the US. It does not, however, prohibit the things I describe above. This is this gist of the infamous Gonzalez memo, which happens to be an accurate representation of the law.
It is defined by 18 USC Sec. 2340 as follows::
As used in this chapter -
(1) ”torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ”severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
No, Roach, I haven’t forgotten. Even after an unrelated war in Iraq, I haven’t forgotten.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 11, 2005 03:54 PMYou really got me with that last zinger. If you all are really hardcore about AQ and ambivalent about Iraq, why all the hand-wringing about POW status for AQ detainees?
Incidentally, under your logic, our war against the Nazis was a frolic and detour from Japan who, unlike Germany, bombed Peral Harbor.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 04:18 PMRoach,
Do you know what the meaning of “is” is? C’mon, you’re defending the use of torture with legalisms, for crying out loud.
The act of torture is wrong. The end never - NEVER - justifies the means. Our great nation has - justifiably - claimed the moral high ground for 200 years. If Al Qaeda is wrong for using torture, so are we. Only zealots like the Nazis and Al Qaeda think that their despicable acts are justified by the nobility of their causes. Are we turning into a nation of zealots?
In the countless John Wayne movies that I grew up watching, the Duke was always the good guy. In his Westerns, the villians would shoot people in the back, but not the Duke. In his WWII movies, the villians would torture people, but not the Duke. We have to be like John Wayne. It’s behavior that determines the moral high ground, and if we justify torture, we lose it.
Al Qaeda killed approximately 3,000 innocent men, women, and children on 9/11. Estimates of casualties in Iraq resulting from our invasion range from 15,000 up to 100,000. Where’s our moral superiority? Will we still be seen as morally superior to Saddam if the casualtues caused by our invasion exceed the ones he caused? Al Qaeda beheads people - our own leaders want the legal authority to torture suspects. Where’s our moral superiority? Our president tells the world that we’re justified in pre-emptively invading any country that might someday pose a threat, which is the same excuse used by Nazi Germany to invade Poland in 1939. Where’s our moral superiority?
As I said, this war on terrorism is also a war to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world, to prevent our enemies from gaining new recruits. We have to convince the world of our moral superiority. We can’t just SAY that we’re the good guys, we have to show it by BEING the good guys. Our endorsement of torture will cost us the moral high ground and increase the number of recruits for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. That will make the war on terror MUCH harder to win.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 11, 2005 04:23 PMElliott,
Your overheated, sentimental rhetoric is distracting. The McCain law goes beyond torture to legitimate, effective, and justified means of interrogation, such as those I outlined above.
Torture’s already illegal, so what are you trying to achieve with this newer, more stringent law?
As for your elementary school view of American history, Americans have employed rough methods ranging from our use of “total war” against the Southern States, bombing of civilians in WWII, gas in WWI, torture and “scorched earth” policies against the Indians, mass executions of unlawful combatants, and the like since the start of our history. Our moral authority is not tied to the fact that we treat scumbags like scumbags. It’s tied to the fact that we treat honorable people, like other state and thir armies, honorably.
There’s a different set of rules when you’re dealing with monsters. Even then I don’t advocate torture, its use certainly won’t shatter some sacharrine image of the US that I might have picked up in junior high and long since abandoned. I look at the world with my eyes open. And the first rule of war is we win and you lose. We beat the Indians, thank God, and conquered this continent. If people like you had been in charge, this country wouldn’t be ours. We beat those savage people because we had people with grit, people that were unsentimental about violence, and people that were above all willing to change the rules to deal with an enemy that fought incredibly dirty, frequently employing rape and massacres of civilians as a weapon. Take the gloves off and we’ll take ours off too.
US violence is almsot always instrumental in nature. While the Germans and Japanese were willing to hurt their own war efforts just to commit violence—such as in Hitler’s divergence of rail cars for the Holocaust—the US brutally and methodocially upped the ante against Germany and Japan, ultimately resulting in our use of atomic weapons. Did that lose our moral authority? Hardly. Was it a great and wonderful thing? No. But losing would have been worse, and losing more Americans today to Al Qaeda will be worse than the alternative. My view of US righeousness won’t be changed one iota if those son of a bitches do not get a good night’s sleep, or see a pissed on Koran, or a chick’s tits, or have to eat a pork sandwhich, or listen to loud Iron Maiden, or whatever else the interrogators think will get them to start yapping.
We need to win, and we won’t do it until we learn that the rules have changed, something sentimentalist like Elliott have not.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 05:04 PMAlso the “end never justifies the means” is a stupid, meaningless statement. Is it wrong to kill? Depends on the circumstances, right? Such as in a just war or to punish a criminal after a fair trial versus as part of a bank robbery or for a thrill. In other words, the goals and circumstances define if an otherwise bad act is justified.
Torture may even be justified or at least forgivable in very rare circumstances. I wonder how you’d react if you had an EPW who knew something that might save your men’s lives. Guys in Iraq face this dilemma every day. So spare me your moral certainty.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 05:08 PMTorture isn’t only morally reprehensible, it’s also bad politics. As long as our leaders continue to proclaim loudly to the rest of the world that we are the “forces of good”, but continue to allow and even condone torture, then the rest of the world will be jutified in seeing us as hypocrites.
The Abu Ghraib photos and the condoning of torture will continue to drive large numbers of Muslims into the arms of our enemies, therby increasing their strength, and making this war MUCH harder for us to win.
And what the heck does “We beat the Indians, thank God, and conquered this continent” mean? The Indians were here first, Roach. And they were NEVER a threat to the European settlers. Until the settlers started taking their land, that is. As for massacres, look up Wounded Knee, look up Washita, look up Sand Creek and then come tell me that us poor, innocent whites didn’t massacre the Indians. The Indians learned how to scalp from us. We gave them blankets from smallpox victims. We broke treaty after treaty after treaty with them, always assuring them that it wouldn’t happen again. But it always did. We took their land and killed them. And we started it. Makes yuh proud t’be an Ameruhcan huh? Gimme a break.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 11, 2005 07:00 PMChris,
The “gist” of the Gonzales memo was that the Taliban fighters did not apply under the Geneva Convention because they could be considered non-state actors. I think that is a tenuous argument at best.
Of course, I’m sure you knew that since you very carefully referred to Al Qaeda and not the Taliban when referring to prisoners at Gitmo and other installations. There are large numbers of non-Al Qaeda, Taliban fighters who can’t necessarily be deemed terrorists. How do they fit into your argument?
Your list of actions that could or could not be considered torture depending on degree is precisely the problem. How can you write a law to specifically cover every act of torture that exists or could be devised? I don’t have the Army Field Manual handy. Perhaps you could post it and tell us what you think is too broadly defined. Like it or not, broad definitions need to be used with the courts defining what is justified or not.
Torture may even be justified or at least forgivable in very rare circumstances. I wonder how you’d react if you had an EPW who knew something that might save your men’s lives. Guys in Iraq face this dilemma every day. So spare me your moral certainty.
I agree with you here, but it is precisely why a law can still be written. Just because one can be justified in committing a homicide doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t write a law calling murder illegal.
But again, you make the case (that I agree with) that it is justifiable in only very rare cases. How much valuable information do you really think these guys have that have been locked up in Gitmo for 3 years?
Posted by: Burt at November 11, 2005 07:02 PMBert, all good points. I am not sure on Taliban, but I think it’s fair to say that their harboring of AQ and their own failure to distinguish themselves on the battlefield makes their claims of true POW status harder than the normal case.
As for Elliott, the ledger on the Indian side of sins is nothing to sneeze out, but you probably haven’t learned that from the PC education factories of today. Why don’t you read about Indian massacres of other Indians sometimes, or of peaceful white settlers. Learn about the cannibalistic Karankawas or the Foreman Massacre. It was one side or the other; no compromise was possible. If you feel so guilty, though, consider giving all of your property to an Indian to make up for your white guilt.
My only point was that the US has been rough and tumble for a long time, including the Indian Wars, particulary because that enemy did not follow any limits on warfare, not least its tendency to massacre prisoners as Gen. Custer and his men—your countrymen!—learned.
Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 07:14 PMAlso the “end never justifies the means†is a stupid, meaningless statement. Is it wrong to kill? Depends on the circumstances, right? Such as in a just war or to punish a criminal after a fair trial versus as part of a bank robbery or for a thrill. In other words, the goals and circumstances define if an otherwise bad act is justified.
I wouldn’t think that Jesus would agree with you here. Nor does the Catholic Church. In fact, I think a large majority of people, regardless of thier religious upbringing, have been taught the basis of thier moral conduct on a combination of “the end does not justify the means” and “do unto others….”. If it’s truly acceptable for the end to justify the means, then slavery should be reinstituted as it will cut agricultural costs, children should cheat on their tests to get into a better college, employees should murder and bury in their backyard any co-worker that stands in the way of a promotion and, if needed to feed your family, you should steal. These are precisely the kinds of lessons that can be derived from the Bush administration. I shouldn’t be surprised that you brush the concept aside so easily, as it’s always difficult to predict which side of his mouth a conservative will speak out of next.
Stooping to the level of the enemy automatically means they have won. Torture is wrong.
Posted by: Taylor at November 11, 2005 09:04 PMI don’t know how many of you hear have actually undergone torture but Senator McCain has.
We are talking from perspective and he is talking from experience. I understand many of your points Roach, but McCain has “been there, done that” when it comes to torture. With all due respect, I will trust someone who has served our country militarily, in public service and has ACTUALLY been tortured, over all these hypothetical, situational, discussions you have offered.
Nice discussion though.
Posted by: Tom L at November 11, 2005 09:35 PMI will trust someone who has served our country militarily
Wouldn’t it be novel if the commander in chief fit that bill too?
Posted by: Taylor at November 11, 2005 10:28 PMAmerica is last standing super-power! It is our manifest destiny to be the governing force that brings democracy to the world. If we have to torture people to make sure that our country can do this and in turn make sure we have the resources we need to maintain our standing as the last and only super-power in the world, so be it. The stronger we are, the better for those depending on us and our efforts to assure democracy takes hold in countries like Iraq. We know by their actions that the terrorists are evil and need to be eradicated by any means necessary. When it comes to the War On Terror, a strong national defense in not enough. We must go on the offense and torture is one of the most effective ways of making sure that the terrorists know that their days are numbered.
Anyone who questions the actions of the U.S. and its War On Terror, including the use of torture is a traitor and should be treated just like the terrorist.
I tired of these traitors undermining the War On Terror and in turn endangering the lives of our troops. We need to eradicate these traitors from our political landscape. It time to require everyone living in this country to take a loyalty oath, those that don’t should then be consider traitors and dealt with accordingly. We need to weed out the traitors among us and eliminate them if we are going to win the War On Terror.
In fact we should consider any violent crime committed in the United States as an act of terror, and employ torture on those “criminal†terrorist operating domestically. The police in this country need to be federalized as our great President Bush has suggested. That way we can expand our efforts in the War On Terror to include any act of violence that occurs within the country. If we start to use torture not only against the terrorist that attack us for outside the country, but the “criminal†terrorist who create daily terror the people of this country from within, we should be able to assure our future as a Nation. We need eliminate those elements inside and outside our country that want to bring this great Nation down.
If we can effectively employ torture both domestically and international, then we may have no more terror to fear in the not to distant future.
I will trust someone who has served our country militarily
Wouldn’t it be novel if the commander in chief fit that bill too?
Posted by: Taylor at November 11, 2005 10:28 PM
_____________________________
That would mean you’re talking about Bill Clinton. :)
Roach,
You wrote:
I don’t support a policy of torture, but I don’t support the McCain Amendment either. The latter would undermine the Executive unnecessarily by introducing legal processes into a matter more properly left to executive discretion.
Torture should be “a matter of executive discretion” - really… I accept and appreciate your personal opposition to torture. I believe that the Bush Administration sanctioned and encouraged torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghireb, black sites, and elsewhere. We have no definitive proof of that however. But we do have lots of evidence to suggest the probability / possibility of that. But setting that aside - forget that - commanding officers are 100% responsible for all of the actions of their subordinates and that chain of command stretches all the way to Bush the Second. Yet not a single commanding officer has been held accountable… why?… So the usual dodge that it was just a few bad apples does not hold water. Bush either knew or should have known. It was his job to know - no excuses - nothing from the back end of a bull - it was his job to know - period. Yet… he has yet to accept any responsibility for his failure. Either he was willfully and knowingly complicate with torture or he was grossly incompetent - pick your poison - it makes no difference. To give an evil doer who is willfully complicate with torture the legal latitude to engage in it is repugnant. To give an incompetent idiot the legal latitude to avoid responsibility is foolish. If he is too incompetent to do his job, then we need to make it explicit for him, and if he is evil…
You also wrote:
We’re not even close to Al Qaeda even if we inflicted the most greusome tortures on Al Qaeda detainees. Their goals are evil. Ours are defensive. It’s not right to torture, but do not confuse ends and means.
So, since they are more evil, it is OK for us to be a little evil. Is that what you are saying? Besides, they are also fighting a defensive war to protect Islam from foreign invaders and occupiers.
Joe,
You wrote:
I find the lame excuse that terrorists are somehow worse than Nazis really offensive, and somehow justify this un-American torture plan.
I agree. The terrorists are certainly evil - but they are fighting to protect their holy land and religion from foreign occupiers. There is just no comparison to the Nazis who killed millions.
Ray G. wrote:
I agree. The terrorists are certainly evil - but they are fighting to protect their holy land and religion from foreign occupiers. There is just no comparison to the Nazis who killed millions.
______________________
How are these terrorists different than the Nazis?
Posted by: rahdigly at November 11, 2005 11:11 PMimagine for a second that your family was kidnapped and held yet you captured one of the kidnappers. you KNOW that the kidnappers will certainly kill your family if left unfettered. you have no clue where they could be. you have no way of getting information from your captured kidnapper because he won’t talk. the police, fbi, and whoever else you employ cannot find one clue as to where your family is. how would you find your family? would you resort to torture? or would you give the kidnapper a “timeout”?
Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2005 12:15 AMthank God for the gun-toting grandma…she showed true grit!! R. Lee Eremy would be proud…OOO-RAH!
Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2005 12:18 AMAP, I’ll ask you to specifically answer my questions about sleep deprivation. Show me the definition of torture in unambiguous terms.
JBOD, here’s a copy of the US Army Field Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation. Knock yerself out. :)
Ray g is now making excuses for al qaeda. It is disgusting. They are not defending anything. We are not occupying anything. We are in iraq at the behest of the iraqi govt and we were in saudi for the same reason pre 9/11. Such self loathing propaganda is remarkable
Posted by: roach at November 12, 2005 10:41 AMRahdigly,
You asked me to define the ways in which the terrorists are different from the Nazis. Some of our disagreements are the result of different belief systems / world views. Some of our disagreements are the result of different information. It is likely that you believe that liberals such as myself are misinformed by the “liberal media”. I believe that many conservatives are misinformed by the Rush Limbaugh / Fox News propaganda machines. There are some scientific studies that have come out which indicate that people who watch PBS News are better informed about world and national events than people who watch Fox News. I want to see the study that proves that people who watch PBS are also smarter than people who watch Fox. Unfortunately that one has not been done yet. Some of our disagreements are the result of simple differences in perspective. I think that this is one of those.
Nazis are evil. Terrorist are evil. They are the same. Nazis murder innocent people. Terrorist murder innocent people. They are the same. Nazis used terrorism to advance their political agenda. Terrorist use terrorism to advance their political agenda. George Bush uses terrorism to advance his political agenda. They are the same. You will probably argue somewhat persuasively that their is vast qualitative difference between poor abused George and the Nazis. Which is my point exactly. Just because there are some parallels, it does not follow that they are the same. It is important to recognise the similarities. It is vital to recognise the vast differences. If we fail to recognise the differences, we will get into a group think situation where we lump them all into one big pot and wind up making major strategic, social, political and geopolitical miscalculations - like for example - we don’t need troops because the Iraqi people will love us. Some did love us. Many did not. We lumped them all into one big pot and here we are.
There are two vital differences to recognise between the terrorist and the Nazis. Jihad is by Muslim definition a defensive holy war to protect Islam. The second thing is the problem of scale. Hitler killed millions. Bin Laden is impotent, he has killed thousands. Both of these facts could eventually change. If Bin Laden was successful in his defensive war and managed to restore the Caliphate, then he could become megalomaniac and fight an offensive war of conquest and world domination as Hitler did, but that is a long ways off. Why is it absolutely vital to recognise that the terrorist are fighting a defensive war? Many moderate Muslims are sympathetic to Bin Laden even as they abhor his methods and ultimate goals. They perceive that Islam and their holy lands are threatened and they want to see their people “free” of American Imperialist world domination. We could, would, and probably will argue about weather the U.S. is actually imperialistic. There is no argument about the fact that we are perceived as imperialistic. In order to win, we must win the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims. In order to do that, it is vital to recognise that they are fighting a defensive war. I believe that the U.S. is imperialistic. I believe that we are enjoying the American “Golden Age” much like the Roman Golden Age. The Romans had to crush opposition during their golden age because they could not allow themselves to be seen as weak. The Romans became corrupt but the fall of Rome corresponded to the beginning of the dark ages so the Romans were still the best thing going. So to, for the American Imperialist empire, which will eventually collapse. We are corrupt, but we are still the best thing going and the collapse of our empire, at this time, would lead to a new dark age. Accordingly, we can not allow ourselves to be seen as weak. That is why we must win this no win, double bind situation, that this incompetent president has led us into. In order to do that we must recognise that the terrorist are fighting a defensive war. That is absolutely key to developing a winning strategy.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 12, 2005 11:07 AMRoach,
You said:
Why don’t you read about Indian massacres of other Indians sometimes, or of peaceful white settlers. Learn about the cannibalistic Karankawas or the Foreman Massacre.You’re saying that the Indians deserved to be defeated because they did evil things, right? Why was it wrong for the Indians to do evil things, but it’s OK for the United States of America to justify something evil like torture? If someone does something you think is evil, that justifies attacking them. And if we use torture, the rest of the world is justified in viewing US as evil, and attacking us.
Also, I suggest you learn some history of the American west before you accuse me of having an “elementary school view of American history”. Custer & his men were not prisoners. They were killed in battle. And Custer led them into that battle completely ignoring the intelligence of his scouts (remind you of anyone?), who told him that he would be badly outnumbered. Apparently he thought he would be greeted with flowers.
It’s an interesting (to me, anyway) historical footnote that the 1876 Republican Convention was being held just down the river in St Louis and there is some evidence that Custer thought that a “major victory” would allow him to sail down the Missouri and claim the nomination. Kinda like swaggering onto an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to proclaim victory in Iraq.
As for your other points:
If, as you claimed before, the end DOES justify the means, let me ask you a question. The Indians’ justification for fighting was to defend their land and keep the invading foreigners out. The white man’s justification for the same war was to take the Indians’ land, claiming it was our “manifest destiny”. Whose justification for war was better, Roach?
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 12, 2005 11:13 AM
Incidentally, under your logic, our war against the Nazis was a frolic and detour from Japan who, unlike Germany, bombed Peral Harbor.
Sorry, Roach, but we went to war against the Nazis because they declared war on us (right after we declared war on Japan). Iraq didn’t declare war on us until after we invaded. Also, Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t allies, nor were Saddam and Osama. Japan and Germany were.
You would be better off comparing Iraq & Afghanistan to Vietnam & Korea. Both are cases of a pair of smaller wars as part of an overall political strategy (War on Terror / Cold War), but no unified threat between the nations we were at war with, unlike Germany and Japan.
So, to paraphrase you…
Law History takes study; go study it some time.
Roach,
You wrote:
Ray g is now making excuses for al qaeda. It is disgusting. They are not defending anything. We are not occupying anything. We are in iraq at the behest of the iraqi govt and we were in saudi for the same reason pre 9/11. Such self loathing propaganda is remarkable
You are getting a little worked up there aren’t you? Trying to understand ones enemy is quite different from making excuses for them. From your earlier article, I would have expected a more intelligent and articulate response. We were not invited into Iraq. We invaded Iraq. We conquered Iraq and installed a weak government that is entirely dependent upon us. So of coarse, they want us to stay and prop them up - and - it is debatable, but we probably should stay - in spite of the fact that there good evidence to suspect that our president may have lied in order to lead us to war. But regardless of whether the current Iraqi government asks us to stay or not, our troops are still in control of (occupying) Arab land. We still have troops in Afghanistan and Kuwait (I think). We have had troops in Saudi Arabia. If our troops are there - they are occupying land. That is especially true as seen through the eyes of our enemies. It also especially true of people who are sympathetic to our enemies. It is even true as seen through the eyes of people who are sympathetic to us, but who are unsure of whether they can trust us or not. As I said before, Jihad is defined as defensive military action in defense of Islam and Islamic Holy Lands. That is what it is. To merely and simplistically call your enemy evil - and to fail to recognise, that in his eyes he is heroically fighting against overwhelming odds to protect something that he holds sacred, is to grossly under-estimate your enemy - and only a fool does that - someone like maybe… …Bush the Second. And… further… even if we did not have troops in the Holy Land - in the eyes of our enemies - and - many of our friends (both so called and real) - we would still be both correctly and incorrectly viewed as controlling Arab and Muslim destiny through our political, economic, military, and geopolitical might and through surrogates such as the Saudi Crown Prince and the Israelis. There would be some truth in that view and some falsehood. But the truth or falsehood makes no difference. The terrorist would still see themselves as justified in fighting a defensive jihad against the infidels and it does us no good to foolishly bury our heads in the sand and fail to recognise the underlying causes and motivations of our enemies.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 12, 2005 03:52 PMTo those who want to believe Bush uses terrorism to further his agenda.
Explain how that works.
I frankly call that argument poppycock
Our enemy undoubtedly feels agrieved due to his overarchoing ideology of superiority and totalitarian islam. That does not make his goals the equals of ours. We have every right—moral and legal—to avenge 9/11 and destroy al qaeda to prevent similar attacks. Our use of untoward means would not change the fundamentals of the equation: that we are right and they are not
Even if I induldged in your pseudo nuanced view I would still be unimpressed. The question simple. Do we allow osama to control us or not
Posted by: roach at November 12, 2005 06:58 PMRegardless of how the primitive and hateful aq hordes view themselves their ends are only defensive if you abuse the language to call our invited stay in saudi an occupation. It is no more an occupation than german planes at white sands who train there by agreement. I also agree that even a just cause does not justify an unjust means but that the use of such means does not bring one down to the level of those with evil ends viz our strat bombing in wwii. Ray g’s logic does not permit these gradations.
Posted by: roach at November 12, 2005 07:06 PMWe have had hundreds of claims of abuse. They have been investigated and punished if appropriate. We have had 70,000 detainees. The ratio is not high/
Iraqi army etc are POWs. Terrorists not in uniform and hitting civilian targets are not.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2005 07:06 PMFinally there was a kind of injustice with the indians but it was also inevitable upon our discovery of the new world. To say they were right however ignores their sadism and use of rape as a weapon. Are you saying that they raped but in a good cause rayg. I really could care less about our alleged crimes against the indians not least bc most of them were too savage cruel and primitive not to be conquered ultimately. No way we would have kept this continent as a nature preserve for pagan warrior societies
Posted by: roach at November 12, 2005 07:16 PMRoach,
Are you claiming that the Indians were inferior and DESERVED to be conquered?
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 12, 2005 07:26 PMRoach,
You claim that the natives
were too savage cruel and primitive not to be conqueredDo you realize how racist that sounds? I hope you didn’t intend it that way. And by the way, you’re proving my point every time you say stuff like that. You’re claiming on the other hand that the natives were evil because they did evil things like using torture. But you’re also claiming that we aren’t evil even though we’re trying to justify torture, which everyone acknowledges is an evil thing. You can’t have it both ways, Roach.
I’d agree that rape is a horrible thing. But the US cavalry did just as bad if not worse. There are accounts of US cavalry troops cutting the genitalia from living native females and using them to decorate their saddle horns. Read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” by Dee Brown for more details.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 12, 2005 07:42 PMRoach,
You wrote:
Our enemy undoubtedly feels agrieved due to his overarchoing ideology of superiority and totalitarian islam. That does not make his goals the equals of ours. We have every right—moral and legal—to avenge 9/11 and destroy al qaeda to prevent similar attacks. Our use of untoward means would not change the fundamentals of the equation: that we are right and they are not
I am not sure where I ever said that our enemies goals are the equal of ours. I do believe that it is appropriate to defend ourselves however I do not believe in vengeance. I am not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the word, but I do believe that the Bible contains great spiritual wisdom and that it is the goal of my life to try to become more Christ like. The Bible says “Vengeance is mine, thus saith the Lord thy God”. Even an atheist can see that vengeance begets vengeance and we will never win the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims through vengence, and we will never win this war until we win their hearts and minds. That is why Jesus admonished to “turn the other cheek”. The point is that your apparent hateful desire to focus on vengeance would lead to our downfall.
We will also never win hearts and minds through torture - nor through the threat to continue torturing - nor through making excuses for the torturing that we have already done - nor through refusing to make firm commitments never to do it again. The fact that our enemies goals are not the equal of ours does not mean that ours are lily white - nor does it justify spiritual bankruptcy and degeneracy on our part - nor does it mean that we will not lose ground as a result of torture, and the refusal to make a clear convincing commitment to stop.
I did say that it is important to understand our enemies goals and motivations. I did say that our enemy perceives himself as fighting a defensive war in defense of Islam. I did say that many moderate Muslims also perceive us as a threat to Islam. I did say that many people through out the world perceive us as imperialistic. I did say that I personally believe that they are somewhat correct in that view - at the very least a little bit correct. I did say that regardless of whether they are correct - that the perception creates problems for us.
The only thing that my logic does not permit is some of the faulty conclusions that you draw. Military troops occupy territory - no matter how you look at it - particularly troops that are involved in live combat. We can argue about whether they should be there - it doesn’t matter - they are there - we need for them to win - we need for them to win in spite of this incompetent commander and chief - and that is immensely more difficult because of the torture that occurred on this commander and chief’s watch. Each excuse that we make for torture makes winning that much more difficult. Our resistance to making a firm commitment to stop torture in the future also makes winning more difficult.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 12, 2005 11:01 PMYou can’t have it both ways
The GOP most certainly can. Pro-life / Pro-death. Pro-ethics / Pro-corruption. Pro-american worker / Pro-corporate outsourcing. Pro-defense / Pro-weak borders. And this just in — Attaching a car battery to someone’s nipples is now a “family value”.
These guys are laughable. They fail to see how contradictory thier message is.
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 01:30 AMTaylor,
I enjoyed your family value joke. Humor especially good humor always expresses an underlying truth.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 10:29 AMI might have said extreme thing about the sainted indians but my viewpoint was mainstream before suicidal multiculturalism got ordinary americans essentially to wish that our people did not exist and that it lost its wars with the mirderous indians. I am glad we are here that we won those wars and that the indians lost. Life is full of cruelty and struggle. I am not a pollyanna nor am I letting sentimentalism restrain my views of historical and military necessity. all this indian stuff is just a pose.
Posted by: roach at November 13, 2005 11:14 AMThis stuff about hearts and minds is juvenile. We will not and should not try to win the hearts and minds of committed jihadists. We should simply try to kill them and get regimes that might try to suport them to realize it is too costly to do so. You cannot fight and win wars with the morality of the schoolyard. Elliot and rayg and others on the left have no plan for victory. They call torture the least imposition on aq detainees and consistently knock america’s moral authority in the past and today.
Posted by: roach at November 13, 2005 11:25 AMRoach,
I don’t know how you guys got off on this Indian track, but it is not just a pose. There is much to learn from it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Everything that ElliotBay has said on this subject is accurate. It is true that the Indians engaged in some savagery. It is also true that they too were fighting a defensive war against overwhelming odds in defense of their sacred lands. It is also true that European culture was more socially, politically, and militarily advanced than native American culture at that time. However… that said… your Pollyanna, head buried in the sand about our own short comings attitude that we were virtually all righteous and that they were virtually all evil and deserved the genocide and culturecide that we visited upon them simply does not hold water. The important thing to learn from the European invasion of the Americas was not that the Indians were wrong - we are not responsible for the wrongs of others. The important thing to learn from the European invasion of the Americas is that we were also wrong. We are responsible for our wrongs. We can make amends for our wrongs - apologize - promise to never do it again - change ourselves - so that the world has an opportunity to change around us. We can have the humility and intelligence to learn from our mistakes - not to brow beat ourselves at all - but - so that we can become better more powerful truly loving people - because as Jesus and Buddha (among others), both showed love is the only source of true power. Changing ourselves is the only real change that we can ever make. Others will change in response to our real changes of ourselves, but forcing real change on others is something that we can never do.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 11:55 AMRoach,
Nobody here said anything about winning the hearts and minds of committed jihadists. Nobody. Quit trying to put words in others’ mouths. And by the way, authorizing torture is undermining America’s moral authority, Roach. Expecting America to live up to its moral authority is not undermining it.
You’ve used terms like juvenile quite often here. Characterizations like that are usually the last resort of someone who’s losing an argument and knows it.
And yes I do have a plan for victory. I’ve posted it here before. You have obviously either not seen it or chosen to ignore it. So I’ll repeat some of it:
Last but not least, IMO if Gore had been elected, 9/11 would not have happened. I think that if Gore had seen the Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001 titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”, containing the following words
al Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens- have resided in or travelled in the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacksAnd going on to say
FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New YorkIf Gore had seen such a memo, he would NOT have ignored it, unlike a certain current president. Do you know what the bi-partisan 9/11 commission said about what the Bush administration did after seeing such a dire warning?
We have found no evidence of any further discussion before September 11th between the President and his advisors about the possibility of a threat of al Qaeda attack in the United StatesThat’s right. Bush ignored it.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 13, 2005 12:47 PM
That’s right. Bush ignored it.
Did he? Or was it just that the news made him so weary he had to go on an extended vacation at the ranch? :)
Posted by: Taylor at November 13, 2005 12:56 PMElliotBay,
Thanks for explicitly clarifying that we are not suggesting that we try to win the hearts and minds of committed terrorists. Bush certainly ignored the threat of terrorism before 911. Clinton did better job but also failed as a direct result of the deliberate Machiavellian tactics of Ken Starr to cripple his presidency. As Taylor mentioned, Bush was apparently too tired to pay attention and needed an extended vacation. He was also apparently so tired that he needed to sit for seven minutes when America was under attack in the nuclear age. He only made his famous bullhorn speech three days later when Rove realized that they had a P.R. problem - so - of coarse the solution was to go and interrupt rescue efforts at ground zero.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 05:07 PMRoach,
ElliotBay has a pretty good plan for winning in Iraq. For my part, it is true, I do not have a plan. I have made suggestions similar to ElliotBay’s in other post, but I am not the least bit convinced that they will work. I am not the least bit convinced that they will work because of the incompetency of this commander and chief and because of the double bind no win situation that he has led us into. I believe that we could still win… but I also believe that it is becoming increasingly difficult and unlikely especially when people like you… and much more importantly… Bush, try to weasel on the issue of torture. I have detailed many reasons in numerous other post why I think that this war may be, or, soon may be unwinnable as a result of the failures of this president. We must win… but it may already be too late to win… rock and a hard place… thanks Oh brilliant one. And, as I have repeatedly said elsewhere, if we win, all of the credit belongs to our brave troops and to the noble intentions of the American people, and none of the credit belongs to Bush… or to anybody who makes excuses for, weasels, and justifies torture. Period.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 05:30 PMFurther more Roach,
Even if we do win Iraq. Even if we turn Iraq into a progressive liberal democracy which would have the effect of making America safer - safer that is if all other things were equal - but all other things are not equal - because in the process we will have helped Osama recruit millions of new supporters - and!! - we will have trained thousands of them - probably tens of thousands of them - in live combat training against the most powerful army in the world. So we and our children will be in greater danger for decades to come due to Bush’s incompetence - and that is if we win.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 05:48 PMI decided that this would be a good place to post a couple of entries from “Ray’s Brief Abridged Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases” I wrote these in MS Word so they will have a lot of formatting problems here - but I am going to paste them in anyway.
Torture (TÅr΄cher) noun. The act of beautiful American women getting sexy with Arab men. The act of Gay Republicans using low ranking American soldiers and Arab men to create Gay pornography. George W. Bush attempting to speak English. A process of winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims. A process of teaching American values.
Torture In Texan: (TÅrt΄cher΄) a verb. meaning to think. As in: George W. Bush does not believe in torture and promises never to do it.
If the liberals on this thread and their formula of don’t-be-too-mean-inwarfare were followed in the past, the US wouldn’t exist today. We would have lost the Indian wars, WWII, and probably numerous other wars as well. That’s why that kind of logic is meaningless. It is a formula for failure that no society, whose existence and way of life is threatened, would follow. We’re supposed to be ashamed because our mode of warfare does not respect the “golden rule” Yet we know that war is not peace. The rules are different. Without a formula for victory, all of the handwringing about human rights is meaningless philosophizing. If you lose a war to the enemy, the enemy decides what values you live under, whether it is the pagan Indians, the totalitarian Germans, or the sharia-loving jihadis of Al Qaeda.
We’re told that our current use of very mild interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda is not in line with American values, but this does not square with reality. We have fought very brutally in the past against those who do not respect the laws of war, most particularly the Indians, the German, and the Japanese. While I don’t think every such act or tactic was necessary, justified, or appropriate today, it is appropriate that one treats a dishonorable enemy that does not follow the laws of warfare differently than one who does. The law of war in fact contemplates this, under the concept of “reprisals.” The law of war is fundamentally reciprocal in nature; there is no enforcement authority. If the enemy does not follow the law of war, your own obligations are severely diminished.
This has nothing to do with Iraq, per se, though Al Qaeda has chosen to make that a battlefield as well. When the enemy is a guerilla in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or anyone else that acts outside the law of war and its limitations, I am only advocating a very limited use of interrogation methods, well short of torture, that would not be permitted against POWs for a state-sponsered army that actually follows the law of war.
We’re challenged by one of the writers above that we have not captured OBL. Has the writer not considered that we cannot find and capture OBL without using a variety of interrogation techniques that we are not permitted to use against those with full POW status, that is, that we could not obtain if his methods were followed?
The problem with the McCain amendment, in contrast to the existing torture statute, is that existing law forbids certain acts. All else is permitted, or at least permitted to be decided upon by the executive. Affirmative duties of “humane treatment” as McCain mandates would interject judicial review into an executive branch process that now only has very limited prohibitions. By imposing affirmative obligations, it would hamstring the executive, undermine the balance of power, and hurt our intelligence gathering.
That is my position.
Posted by: Roach at November 13, 2005 06:18 PMRoach,
Humane interrogation techniques are far more effective than the non-Geneva Convention sanctioned techniques that you advocate.
I don’t think that any of us suggested that we should not fight as hard or aggressively to win as necessary. You certainly have not read my post from other threads. If you actually read what we have written you would see that we are saying that torture - splitting hairs about torture - and trying to weasel out of making a firm commitments not to torture, undermines our ability to win - just our opinion - but correct none the less.
You actually wrote:
We’re challenged by one of the writers above that we have not captured OBL. Has the writer not considered that we cannot find and capture OBL without using a variety of interrogation techniques that we are not permitted to use against those with full POW status, that is, that we could not obtain if his methods were followed?
Give me a break. We did not need to torture anybody in order to corner Osama in Tora Bora. What we needed was a commander and chief that would do the job in stead of out sourcing it to Osama’s friends and former comrades in arms.
Roach You also wrote:
The problem with the McCain amendment, in contrast to the existing torture statute, is that existing law forbids certain acts. All else is permitted, or at least permitted to be decided upon by the executive. Affirmative duties of “humane treatment†as McCain mandates would interject judicial review into an executive branch process that now only has very limited prohibitions. By imposing affirmative obligations, it would hamstring the executive, undermine the balance of power, and hurt our intelligence gathering.
Hey I agree. This will limit the executive branches discretionary powers - and that is unfortunate - it should not be necessary - boo hoo - I am crying crocodile tears - but as I have already explained above - Bush either knew or should have known - either he was willfully complicate - or he was incompetent - no ifs - no ands - no buts - in either case we now need to make it explicate for him - we can no longer trust him with such immense power. Too much is at stake.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 13, 2005 08:26 PMRoach,
Are you seriously saying that we won WWII and the Indian wars BECAUSE we used torture? C’mon, we have the biggest, baddest, most advanced. fighting force in the world. We don’t need to lower ourselves to that of the terrorists. How can anyone say that the terrorists are wrong because they use torture, but we’re right even though we do the same thing? You’re wrong on this issue, and if Cheney has his way, the rest of the world will see us as wrong, too. Alienating the rest of the world is no way to win a war of this kind.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 01:22 PMElliott, are you illiterate? Because not once have I said we should torture anyone. I said I oppose the McCain statute. I oppose affirmative obligations of “humane treatment” that would lead to disputes and judicial oversight of the exectuve, but I’ve not once defended torture, nor have I advocated it. Read what I say carefully, and don’t just see what you want to. Your preordained view of what I’m saying is clouding your judgment, what little of it there is in evidence.
Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 03:39 PMAs I said in my last post, “I am only advocating a very limited use of interrogation methods, well short of torture, that would not be permitted against POWs for a state-sponsered army that actually follows the law of war.”
This kind of precision is mocked as not knowing what the meaning of the word “is” is. No, it’s called not labeling any discomfort by terrorist prisoners “torture.” Torture is a long road from mild sleep deprivation, stress positions, bright lights, yelling, claustrophia, shaking, etc. I favor the existing statute on torture, and no more.
Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 03:41 PMRoach,
Being tied in a stress position for 24 hours and beating people to death - both of which have happened under this commander and chief - is torture. You keep trying to split hairs between what is and