Sunday, April 26, 2009

Reading the memos

I am reading through the Justice Department memos on whether certain enhanced interrogation techniques constituted legally prohibited torture and plan a series of blog posts, dealing with the legal analysis in the memos and the larger question of when and if something that might fall within the "definition" of torture could ever be justified.

But before I do that, it helps to set the guidelines for the debate. Much of our converation on the issue is superficial. We have one side screaming "torture" without much thought about what was actually done and how often. There is little, or no, consideration of what was at stake in the period immediately following the 9-11 attacks.

We have the other side invoking "national security" and the spectre of the ticking time bomb without, again, much consideration of what was actually done and whether the larger moral and strategicand political issues.

We should start, I think, by waiting to emote. 9-11 was an awful and unprecedented attack on US soil. As bad as it was, it was a near miracle that only 3000 persons were killed. Given the nature of an open society and the lethal nature of readily deployed technologies, it is unlikely - and perhaps impossible - that security measures alone will thwart attackers. It is imperative to detect potential plots.

Of course, this must be done in a way which is consistent with life in a liberal and civilized democracy. But our desire to preserve the latter cuts both ways. We have to keep in mind the ways in which our responses to terror can undermine the values of such a society, while also acknowledging that terror will destroy such a society. I don't know how many 9-11s a liberal society can survive, but it is probably a smaller number than we might imagine.

So I don't think it was outrageous to ask whether a series of interrogation techniques which the experts involved believed were likely to lead, not to "confessions" (there was no need for that), but information that would help prevent future attacks. Certain of these techniques (e.g., water dousing, sleep deprivation and waterboarding), which were to be applied only to persons that everyone concedes were involved with Al-Qaeda and its attacks, certainly involved the imposition of physical and mental distress. Indeed, the purpose of their use was to create a level of discomfort sufficient to wear down the prisioner's resistance to interrogation.

On the other hand, they were extremely unlikely to result in lasting or prolonged harm and the law does not prohibit the imposition of phyical and mental distress, but "severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental." In other words, there is some level of pain and suffering which may be inflicted without amounting to torture.

Whether these techniques were in fact prohibited remains to be seen, but the answer is not obvious and, in light of what was at stake, I am not prepared to say it was odious to ask. Whether the imposition of less than severe pain and suffering is, even if legal, an unwise or immoral policy is yet another question. All I am saying now is that we should take these questions seriously.

Now, did DOJ get it right?

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, it's not outrageous to ask if certain "interrogation techniques" may lead to the discovery of information that may prevent future attacks. Maybe torture works in that regard, maybe it doesn't; the number of times the Government had to use it against certain "high-value detainees" suggests that it didn't work all that well, or at least didn't work very quickly.

But, by the same token, we must ask this question, too: To what extent does the use of those techniques cause future attacks? To what extent does this country, by employing "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, against a group of fanatical adherents of a billion-strong faith, foster the hatred that ensures that there will be more attacks? There are hundreds of millions of young Muslim men growing up in poverty and hopelessness, under oppressive regimes. Their resentments and anger are increased when the country that is called the Great Satan acts satanically. When we torture Muslim men, we live up to what bin Laden says of us. We may foil tomorrow's plot, but we scatter the seeds for a thousand more.

President Obama wisely perceives that we do not weaken ourselves, we strengthen ourselves, when we live according to our ideals, and are perceived as so living. This is what differentiates us from those who decapitated Daniel Pearl.

Dad29 said...

Maybe torture works in that regardTwo sentences in, and you've poisoned the water.

As to your question, 'does rough interrogation prevent/cause future attacks,' it's mooted, one would think, by the fact that 9/11 occurred PRIOR to the interrogations in the first damn place.

In fact, what you claim (stripped of the emo language) is this:

Muslims are incapable of self-control and fighting by the established rules of war....particularly Muslims who are 'impoverished and oppressed.'

You make a splendid case for Bush's Preventive Attacks, anony.

illusory tenant said...

"It helps to set the guidelines for the debate.

"We have one side screaming ... We have the other side invoking ..."

Would that be setting the guidelines, or poisoning the well?

Anonymous said...

Dad29, there's a fallacy in your statement "As to your question, 'does rough interrogation prevent/cause future attacks,' it's mooted, one would think, by the fact that 9/11 occurred PRIOR to the interrogations in the first damn place." No one has suggested that "rough interrogation" -- what a marvelous euphemism -- was the cause of 9/11. That doesn't mean it can't have an impact on the possibility of future attacks. That there are other, underlying causes of Islamofascist terrorism doesn't mean we can't make matters worse.

Dad29 said...

I disagree that "there's a fallacy" in my statement. In fact, 9/11 occurred PRIOR to any interrogations.

The fallacy, my friend, lies with YOUR statement which tells us that "the Islamofascist terrorists are incapable of correct behavior."

I don't give a rip WHAT their reasons are.

By the way, that's the standard you would apply to the USA.

Do you also think that the Islamofascist terrorists are 'less than human,' or just 'less self-controlled'?

Anonymous said...

Dad29, you are now degenerating from the merely fallacious to the unintelligible. Yes, 9/11 occurred prior to any interrogations. What is that supposed to prove? That the use of torture in interrogations has no adverse consequences? That the good old USA can behave any way it wants to, and how we behave will not impact how other people think of us -- or how they act?

I didn't say that Islamofascist terrorists are incapable of correct behavior. Are you saying that, or do you think I said or implied that? Like other people, the people who have been recruited into these organizations are likely capable of good, and capable of evil. How they act is the result of complex forces, combination of heredity and environment, I suppose. Maybe some are sociopaths who truly are incapable of correct behavior. But others are misguided and manipulated. You should give a rip as to what their reasons are. Understanding the causes of terrorist behavior is a good way to combat it.

All I'm saying is that when we torture people, we make ourselves a target. You disagree, evidently.

Dad29 said...

Ummmnnnnhhhh...yah.

"We make ourselves a target," just like the Islamofascists did, with their 9/11 move (not to mention the Iranian, Iraqian, and Palestinian atrocities, innumerable here.)

The difference: WE don't just behead or stone people to death for some imagined slight against some 'religious' teaching.

We extract information which protects OUR people from more atrocities.

Obviously, such differences are a bit too esoteric for you to grasp.

Dad29 said...

And, by the way, YOU call it "torture."

Others do not--including a battery of lawyers who examined the question for the Bush administration.

I don't concede your characterization.

Clutch said...

the purpose of their use was to create a level of discomfort sufficient to wear down the prisoner's resistance to interrogation.

On the other hand, they were extremely unlikely to result in lasting or prolonged harm
Hey, know what? That has the look of glib bullshit that you just made up.

The law includes mental suffering in its scope. Let's have a very clear, simple explanation of your evidence that it's "extremely unlikely" that the infliction of pain and suffering sufficient to break the will of a (perceived) committed enemy causes no prolonged mental harm.

Thanks in advance. You must have this evidence at your fingertips, right? Because you wouldn't just make up something like that to advance your torture apologetics, right?

Anonymous said...

Dad29, you're not addressing my point. The Islamofascist terrorists committed atrocities on 9/11, in Iran, Iraq, and in Palestine. Agreed. We are better than them; we don't just behead people for no good reason. No argument here. The purpose of what you call "harsh interrogation," what I call torture -- you call it tomato, I call it tomato, whatever -- was to protect our people. Granted.

On all that we agree. I get those differences. The question remains: In the pursuit of what we would all agree is a worthy goal -- protecting this country from future attacks -- is there a downside to using what many consider to be torture? (You can keep your battery of Bush administration lawyers. They won't get us very far in the market of world opinion.) You say no. I say yes.

Your implicit assumptions are these: there is a defined number of Islamofascist terrorists out there. There is going to be that number of them no matter what we do (except to the extent we can kill them). Our actions have no influence on their recruiting. Public opinion in the Muslim world and beyond -- who gives a rip about that. Who gives a rip about the causes of terrorism. We've got to protect our own. The end justifies the means.

Did I accurately state your views?

To state these propositions plainly is, I think, to suggest their weaknesses.

Dad29 said...

You summarize our agreements nicely.

Your last graf is a bit troublesome.

There is a number of Islamofascist terrorists out there, yes. We either kill them first, or they kill us, yes. We must protect our own, yes.

As to "public opinion," you seem to think that Islamofascist terrorists read AP and Reuters and watch MSM television news. Are you aware that Muslim extremists have been publishing lies about Israelites and Catholics for....oh....1200++ years?

Puhhllleeeeeeze. You cannot be that naive. Extremists will continue to lie about the USA--in terms only slightly more inflammatory than those used by the Russkis back in the good old days. Those Russki terms are now used by Social Science teachers in US grade-schools, by the way....

Finally, I NEVER suggested that "the end justifies the means," despite my education by the Jesuits.

But the "ends" forbidden are those which are decidedly immoral. That does not include putting crawly-bugs into a room, sleep deprivation, nor pretend drownings.

Anonymous said...

Here's where we disagree. I don't think the number of Islamofascist terrorists is fixed and inalterable. There's a small gang of them living in caves and other hiding spots in remote parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That number is small; they do not pose a challenge to us without new recruits and sleeper cells. How do they win recruits? Through propaganda; through persuasion. Yes, they'll tell lies about us. But they'll also tell some truths. They'll talk about Abu Ghraib, and show pictures of the abuses perpetrated there -- by us. Abu Ghraib was the product of a culture that condoned "harsh interrogation."

You don't think the Islamofascist terrorists read AP and Reuters? Heck, they read Agence France Presse and the New China News Service. These folks have a direct pipeline to Al Jazeera. Holed up in their caves as they are, they manage to put out good-quality video and audio -- because they understand full well that the battle they are fighting is for hearts and minds.

That is the larger battlefield, the battle for the hundreds of millions of Arabs and Iranians and Indonesians and Pakistanis and Chechens and Uzbeks and Turks and others who are watching and listening. Who are we? A nation of infidels that oppresses Iraqis at places like Abu Ghraib, and imprisons people indefinitely without charges at Guantanamo, and tortures Muslims? Or are we a nation of all faiths, including Muslims, a people that rejects torture, and which was open-minded enough to elect as president a man named after the prophet Hussein?

Who do we choose to be? The choice has consequences.

Dad29 said...

A nation of infidels that oppresses Iraqis at places like Abu Ghraib, and imprisons people indefinitely without charges at Guantanamo, and tortures Muslims?Nice rhetoric. All gossamer, of course...

Yes, SOME of the Islamists read AFP, Reuters, et al.; most of their recruits only read (if they can read) what they are told.

"Civil procedures" are for civilians, not non-State combatants.

Abu G was a rogue operation. Maybe you've heard of Original Sin? THAT is the cause---not 'harsh inter's.'

Or are we a nation of all faiths, including Muslims, a people that rejects torture, and which was open-minded enough to elect as president a man named after the prophet HusseinMore very pretty ear-candy.

If that stuff worked as well as you'd like, there would be no armed forces anywhere.

And maybe Lepanto and Vienna wouldn't have needed all those swords, eh?

Anonymous said...

The Inquisition invented waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation" techniques. It only figures that today's Catlicks would approve of turning the screws on their modern enemies, both real and perceived. Many of these self annointed religiosos continue to live in an Old Testament world.

Anonymous said...

Anony,
I think the biggest mistake in your argument is probably what you feel is your strongest point. You believe that stories of torture of Muslims by Americans will inflame other Muslims in to joining radical groups. I think this is wrong in a number of ways:

1) False/true stories will continue to be a recruiting tool no matter what we do. The discussed forms of hardship/torture are puppy petting seminars compared to their basic training for what to do to infidels. It could possibly be used as a recruiting tool, but more likely as a show of how weak we are.
2) Radical Muslim belief is that infidels should never be trusted or believed. It is scripture that it is okay to lie, cheat and even kill infidels. When your Imams preach that out of the 'good book', what we do pales to background noise.
3) Moderate Muslims recognize the difference between 'torture' of detainees and 'torture' of mass murderers.
4) Moderate Muslims recognize the difference between 'torture' of mass murderers and senseless killings.

i.e. I doubt that word of our torture techniques inspire anyone to join the radicals who was not already going to join anyway.
Tuerqas

Anonymous said...

Wow anony 1:08. You think waterboarding was invented by the inquisition? How incredibly daft... or maybe just that pathetic.

I am not surprised that you think that, mind you. People like you have been comparing Bush to Hitler for years.

Then the irony of the old testament statement... Here are radical Muslims quite literally living the old testament life with stonings and beheadings (you know, with a sword) and you accuse the USA of being in the old testament while admonishing us that those radicals read AP and Reuters and "they manage to put out good-quality video and audio".
Tuerqas

Dad29 said...

Tuerq--Anony was Catholic-bashing, which remains a perfectly licit "bash" these days.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the second clue Dad, my first was "Catlick".
Tuerqas

Anonymous said...

"You think waterboarding was invented by the inquisition? How incredibly daft... or maybe just that pathetic."

A flimsy grasp of history inevitably leads to clumsy conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Nice to see dad stepping out of his cave to scratch his nuts and belch.

Anonymous said...

Just so we're clear here, folks, Anony 1:08, who posted that "Catlick"-bashing post that pointed out the Inquisition invented waterboarding, is not the same Anony who posted some insightful comments here earlier (if that Anony does say so himself).

But it's interesting to note that the Catholic Church's use of waterboarding feeds anti-Catholic animus five hundred years after the fact. And you guys don't think our use of waterboarding will nourish anti-U.S. animus today? No, course not. Moderate Arabs will give us a pass, and "word of our torture techniques" won't inspire anyone to be an extremist who wasn't going to be one anyhow.

I give up.

Dad29 said...

Oh, I don't question that the use of waterboards will cause some resentment. There may be a few thousand Muslims who think it's just awful. Frightful. Horrific.

But there were a few thousand Muslims who actively disliked the USA because we were friendly with Israel. Or because we bought their petroleum. Or because we're largely Christian. Or because they don't like our television commercials and programming (a sentiment with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way...)

Ummmmnnnnnhhhhhh...

That's one reason that the US maintains a large and VERY effective Defense establishment.

Of course, there are also a few thousand civilized people who think that executing people for illicit sex is a bit overboard. Or that executing people for leaving the IslamCult is similarly, ahhh, aggressive.

I'm looking in vain for news reports stating that the offended Christians are gathering in ...say...Idaho...to train for terrorist attacks on Riyadh, or Istanbul.

Maybe you'll find out that the world ain't fair someday.

Anonymous said...

Sorry History majors, waterboarding was used in ancient Egypt according to some pictography originally found in, I believe, the Valley of the Kings. Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge today? How very sad.

"But it's interesting to note that the Catholic Church's use of waterboarding feeds anti-Catholic animus five hundred years after the fact. And you guys don't think our use of waterboarding will nourish anti-U.S. animus today? No, course not. Moderate Arabs will give us a pass, and "word of our torture techniques" won't inspire anyone to be an extremist who wasn't going to be one anyhow."

(Note I am not Catholic, just a historian) I will believe you that there are people today who still blame or hate the Catholic church for using torture hundreds of years ago, but that seems to me to be a personal problem. To blame Catholics or Catholicism for it today is just stupid. Every major religion has a history of violence. To blame a specific religion for centuries past non-personal injustices enough to turn to a religion that practiced injustices hundreds of years ago and still practices them today...

Not to say the world is not bursting with them, but it takes a serious hypocrite to condemn deprivation technique 'tortures' while beheadings, stonings, and truly crippling tortures are part of your country's arsenal. Europe has it right on this one, don't advertise what you do as a Government, don't talk about it, do not confirm anything. Or do you think the UK, France, and Germany use no interrogation techniques you would define as torture?

One more thing, it is the liberal majority and media that has made this a religious issue, and they did it on purpose. Our Government would treat an IRA(Catholic) member or Greenpeace terrorist, or redneck baptist exactly the same as any Muslim terrorist if a threat to US citizens was perceived. It is the liberal media that has dragged religions in to the center of this and you have bought it hook, line, and sinker.. Read your own words in the quote above. What do 'Catholics' have to do with US torture techniques today? From the source you cited for waterboarding, it said the US got the technique from the Phillipines in the 20th century. It did not say underground Catholic inquisition agents(or even the religious dissenters this country was settled by). Yet here, all the anons are blaming 'Catholics' instead of 'US Government'. Why?

PS I did not think the Catlick comment came from you(the same person). That is why I cited anony 1:08 and wrote a separate comment.
Tuerqas

Anonymous said...

For Dad29's benefit, and for Tuerqas, since I assume neither one of them can abide watching Obama speak, here are his remarks on this issue from last night's press conference:

What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And so I strongly believed that the steps we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniquest will make us stronger over the longer term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy. OK?


* * *

Wow. I am so glad this guy is our president.

Dad29 said...

Well, unicorns and rainbows!

Churchill fire-bombed Dresden, and claims that "..we do not torture."

Obama says waterboarding is torture. Others of equal stature (and far more worldly experience) disagree.

Unicorns and rainbows!

Anonymous said...

If waterboarding was so effective in getting perps to sing, why isn't it employed by our own domestic law enforcement against kidnappers with knowledge of missing children? Isn't the ticking time bomb scenario (as well as "they behead people" refrain) the underlying argument? Don't get me wrong - I'm not losing sleep over KSM being possibly mistreated. But if it's such a crucial tool why do our own interrogators dismiss its effectiveness?

Anonymous said...

"For Dad29's benefit, and for Tuerqas, since I assume neither one of them can abide watching Obama speak,..."

No far off, but not perhaps the reason you may expect. His words are mostly smooth, reasonably spoken, and sound good in an idealistic sense. His actions do not fit his words though. His words say that his(the liberal majority) agenda is helping the economy, transparency is important, torture is bad, etc.

I agree with you that his writers are exceptional, but since he cannot seem to wax poetic without a teleprompter and the actual state of the country does not fit his rosy words, you might as well have the words come out of GWB's mouth. I do not feel like the man believes or feels his own words.

I am not pro-torture. Miranda and other rights protect citizens from being waterboarded. I agree the world would be better without torture. I would 100% support a Government agency that could protect us from outside threats without its use. I would choose something different, but I hope for our sakes that saying please and thank you to terrorist groups and bowing to their Kings will protect us just as well as arguably torture techniques have done since 9/11.

I happen to diagree with Dad29's primary argument, that of arguing semantics. It is a bit too Clintonesque for me. Waterboarding is still a tool that causes human suffering whether it leaves any sort of mark or not. To define it as torture or not is merely moving the imaginary line to fit your comfort level.

For me, suffice it to say that if that technique does not work, lesser techniques will not likely work either. Is tricking someone okay? Let's say asking politely does not work and we have a convicted terrorist who won't speak about a plot we have uncovered, but need details. What is the best thing to do? Life imprisonment at US expense? Anything else? Given that torture is out, what should happen to that prisoner? I have always thought liberal policies were weak in this area and I would like to hear a better argument.
Tuerqas

Dad29 said...

If waterboarding was so effective in getting perps to sing, why isn't it employed by our own domestic law enforcement against kidnappers with knowledge of missing childrenDo you acknowledge the difference between war and criminal activity?

They are NOT the same--and as Anony mentioned, US citizens are not the same as non-State non-citizen actors.

As to the semantics argument: I respectfully remind you that defining the terms is critical to any meaningful discussion.

Having said that, I too, wish there were a world without Original Sin.

Anonymous said...

Note Dad29, that I did not comment against the semantics argument earlier because I am just not sure it would sway anyone's opinion. Regardless of what any group of experts says, many people will define waterboarding as clearly torture, while others believe it not to be, while others will see if there is an expert concensus. Individuals have their own lines.

For purposes of meaningful discussion, there is only so much definition on varying line of opinion topics like this that you can agree on regardless of expert opinion. If you believe it is critical to the discussion I respectfully remind you that the definitions have not been defined so why are you arguing on anything but the definition?

Of course, people on blogs like this commonly argue from vastly different definitions of the terms of the topic, it is part and parcel to a conservative vs. liberal debate.

Anonymous said...

"his writers are exceptional, but since he cannot seem to wax poetic without a teleprompter..."

Unnnmmmhh...and how does that make him any different from the last president?

"Do you acknowledge the difference between war and criminal activity?"

Tell us all why it's OK to waterboard external terrorists but not US criminals. Again, if it's good for the goose...

Thurmlee said...

What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values.

- Anyone who supports letting babies who survive a botched abortion have no ideals or values to violate.

Dad29 said...

To my knowledge, no US criminal has killed 3200+ US citizens.

That's a start.

Anonymous said...

"his writers are exceptional, but since he cannot seem to wax poetic without a teleprompter..."

"Unnnmmmhh...and how does that make him any different from the last president?"

I can't believe an Obama supporter could leave that kind of opening. Few people loved Bush, no one (save elected Democrats)liked his fiscal policy. Media and liberal constantly mocked his speech, and turn of phrase, or lack thereof.

I am fine with comparing him to Bush and finding no difference except that he has the public eating out of his hand for doing the exact same things Bush did only going further with respect to debt and not as far for national security. I officially mock you for agreeing with the comparisons and still heartily supporting Obama as I am sure you still do. Heh... I am still mocking, heh.
Tuerqas

Anonymous said...

Obama's comments quoted above were extemporaneous remarks delivered in response to a reporter's question, and without the aid of a teleprompter.

I've heard liberals dismiss Reagan's rhetorical gifts as no more than the product of exceptional speechwriters. That charge, too, was false.