War Crimes

ABC News: Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

“War Crimes?” Here’s Marc Ambinder’s take:

… it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes. Stories like this from ABC News will be as relevant a year from now as they are right now, perhaps even more so.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 11 Apr 2008 at 3:26 am

    Cheney, Others OK’d Harsh Interrogations
    …

    Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh inte…

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation

    How is this some sort of big revelation? Who did people think approved these types of interrogations?

    that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.

    There are no doubt some Democrats stupid enough to do this, but I think the more rational ones will realize that it would be extremely risky politically.

    The treatment of terrorist suspects is very low on the list of things most Americans don’t like about the Bush administration. I would venture to guess that a signficant minority probably favor outright torture, and even more than that think we treat suspected terrorists too well.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 10:23 am

  2. a former european wrote:

    I for one am outraged at this knowing abuse of “top Al-Quaeda leaders”! Al-Quaeda is the real victim here. Where o where is some brave ACLU lawyer to represent Osama bin Laden against the US? He should get billions in reparations! We all know that the US is the Great Satan and, as the root of all evil, it should be made to pay for its crimes against innocent victims like Osama and Al-Quaeda!

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 1:34 pm

  3. Stephen wrote:

    afe,

    I agree. After all we (the United States, which occupies the moral high ground) does not behead its prisoners with rusty saws.

    We only use clean saws!

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 2:53 pm

  4. Pigilito wrote:

    War crimes? Will they turn the folks over to a UN tribunal? Sounds like a Kos wet dream.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 3:56 pm

  5. Jack wrote:

    I think from the tone you use what your opinion is, but I’d like it straight. Do you think war crimes have been committed by the United States government in the name of the “war on terror”?

    I do.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 5:35 pm

  6. canuckistani wrote:

    If waterboarding is enough to convict the Japanese after WWII, it’s enough to convict the guilty parties in the Bush admin.
    That’s what we call a precedent.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 6:14 pm

  7. David C. wrote:

    Do you think war crimes have been committed by the United States government in the name of the “war on terror”?

    No, policy differences are not crimes.

    If waterboarding is enough to convict the Japanese after WWII, it’s enough to convict the guilty parties in the Bush admin.

    That’s laughable. The Japanese did far more than waterboarding. Making some sort of comparison of U.S. treatment of prisoners and that of the the Imperial Japanese Empire is insane. It’s the logical equivalent of saying: the Japanese gave prisoners food, we give prisoners food, therefore the U.S. treats prisoners like the Japanese did.

    And from a political perspective I can think of few things better for Republicans than if Democrats actually try to go after former members of the administration for supposed war crimes. But I think sane Democrats know that too, which is why it’s highly unlikely to happen.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 7:37 pm

  8. a former european wrote:

    I agree! Death to America! Americans are the world’s premier war criminals! Bush is Hitler and Tojo put together! He should be immediately beheaded, and his headless corpse dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, then beaten with shoes, and then put in a wood chipper to pay for his crimes against humanity! Finally, the world will see true justice!

    I am surprised the noble world community has not already had him boiled in oil for his outrageous use of waterboarding on our lovely, pure, Al-Quaeda freedom fighters!

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 7:45 pm

  9. David C. wrote:

    From the hysterical outcry from some about waterboarding, you might think the U.S. was using it on thousands of prisoners. But to the best of our knowledge, three people have been waterboarded: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. All of them were Al Qaeda leaders. My heart does not bleed for them. Bush should issue blanket pardons for anyone involved before he leaves office, even though it’s probably unnecessary.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 8:02 pm

  10. David C. wrote:

    Bush should have taken personal responsibility for authorizing the waterboarding of those three Al Qaeda leaders, explaind that he did it to get critical information necessary to protect the country, refused to apologize for it, and said that he would not hesitate to authorize it again in a similiar situation, should it appear necessary.

    Had he done that instead of having his officials weasel around and claim waterboarding wasn’t torture, he’d have had massive public support on that issue.

    Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 8:17 pm

  11. JustinH wrote:

    How is this some sort of big revelation? Who did people think approved these types of interrogations?

    In that case, why were only low-level people prosecuted for Abu Ghraib?

    Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn’t do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation.

    – Donald Rumsfeld

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 12:33 am

  12. JustinH wrote:

    How is this some sort of big revelation? Who did people think approved these types of interrogations?

    In that case, why were only low-level people prosecuted for Abu Ghraib?

    Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn’t do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation. – Donald Rumsfeld

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 12:34 am

  13. Chris Huston wrote:

    Let me get this straight. The apologism I see here is a little frightening.

    How is this some sort of big revelation? Who did people think approved these types of interrogations?

    It’s not a big deal, it’s old news that the Administration openly discussed violating the Geneva conventions.

    The treatment of terrorist suspects is very low on the list of things most Americans don’t like about the Bush administration. I would venture to guess that a signficant minority probably favor outright torture, and even more than that think we treat suspected terrorists too well.

    I mean…American’s aren’t really that concerned when the Geneva conventions are violated as long as they are only violated against people the US assures us are very very bad evil people.

    No, policy differences are not crimes.

    Except when that policy difference is, “Hey, I think we should violate international law and fundamental human rights.”

    That’s laughable. The Japanese did far more than waterboarding. Making some sort of comparison of U.S. treatment of prisoners and that of the the Imperial Japanese Empire is insane.

    You see, the US government said waterboarding was torture and Japanese soldiers waterboarded people, and therefore tortured them.

    But you say ‘ah, but the Japanese waterboarded and ripped out toenails, and the US certainly doesn’t rip out toenails, just waterboards so it’s totally cool’

    From the hysterical outcry from some about waterboarding, you might think the U.S. was using it on thousands of prisoners. But to the best of our knowledge, three people have been waterboarded: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

    I mean, it’s not like we’re violating international law when it comes to everyone, just a few people. And they were very very bad people. As long as we only torture the evil people it’s fine.

    Bush should have taken personal responsibility for authorizing the waterboarding of those three Al Qaeda leaders, explaind that he did it to get critical information necessary to protect the country, refused to apologize for it, and said that he would not hesitate to authorize it again in a similiar situation, should it appear necessary.

    Of course, he didn’t do this because then people start asking ‘well, what critical information did we get?’ And that’s such an icky situation right there. Has there every been, outside of an episode of 24, a documented case where life saving information was tortured out of someone that they couldn’t get to otherwise?

    In other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that he had captured some US soldiers that accidentally crossed the border into Iran and has waterboarded them to secure vital intelligence to protect his nation, does not apologize for it, and will do it again if he must.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 12:36 am

  14. JustinH wrote:

    …and by “low level”, I mean “Colonel and below”.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 12:36 am

  15. Alon Levy wrote:

    Sounds like a Kos wet dream.

    Nobody takes him seriously. Yearly Kos may have gotten all Democratic Presidential candidates to do a panel, but a few weeks later, when David Brooks asked Edwards how it was, Edwards didn’t even remember the conference, and an aide had to remind him. That’s how forgettable Kos is.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 2:52 am

  16. David C. wrote:

    It’s not a big deal, it’s old news that the Administration openly discussed violating the Geneva conventions.

    The Geneva conventions do not cover non-state terrorists, spies and saboteurs.

    I mean…American’s aren’t really that concerned when the Geneva conventions are violated as long as they are only violated against people the US assures us are very very bad evil people.

    Except that they weren’t violated. And we know those three individuals were Al Qaeda leaders. We don’t need the U.S. “assuring” us of anything in those cases.

    Except when that policy difference is, “Hey, I think we should violate international law and fundamental human rights.”

    Except that international law was not violated, although it is possible U.S. law was violated.

    You see, the US government said waterboarding was torture and Japanese soldiers waterboarded people, and therefore tortured them.

    The U.S. military personal that were tortured were part of a recognized, uniformed military force and were covered by treaty obligations regarding the treatment of prisoners.

    But you say ‘ah, but the Japanese waterboarded and ripped out toenails, and the US certainly doesn’t rip out toenails, just waterboards so it’s totally cool’

    No, I say it’s an entirely different set of circumstances and it doesn’t lend itself to comparison, except by the intellectually lazy.

    I mean, it’s not like we’re violating international law when it comes to everyone, just a few people. And they were very very bad people. As long as we only torture the evil people it’s fine.

    Again, international law has not been violated. And yes, who gets tortured matters a great deal.

    Of course, he didn’t do this because then people start asking ‘well, what critical information did we get?’ And that’s such an icky situation right there. Has there every been, outside of an episode of 24, a documented case where life saving information was tortured out of someone that they couldn’t get to otherwise?

    Oh please. Another idiotic torture doesn’t work argument. In case you aren’t aware of it, there is a long list of information that the government claims was extracted from Khalid Shaik Mohammed.

    In other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that he had captured some US soldiers that accidentally crossed the border into Iran and has waterboarded them to secure vital intelligence to protect his nation, does not apologize for it, and will do it again if he must.

    So in your world terrorist leaders equal U.S. soldiers? Do you have any more equally ridiculous analogies you’d like to set forth?

    Here’s one that makes more sense. The Iranians capture CIA agents that they believe are gathering intelligence for an upcoming U.S. attack on Iran. So they waterboard them to extract information necessary to protect their country. Would that be a good thing? No. Would it be understandable, yes. Spies operate outside the law and do not have the same expectations for treatment if captured as do uniformed military. That goes double for terrorists.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 10:02 am

  17. David C. wrote:

    In that case, why were only low-level people prosecuted for Abu Ghraib?

    Because they were the people found responsible. There’s no evidence that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were authorized by anyone higher up. Implying that they were is nothing more than yet another conspiracy theory. And the Abu Ghraib situation is different. No one in the administration is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib, and neither am I.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 10:09 am

  18. Davebo wrote:

    From the hysterical outcry from some about waterboarding, you might think the U.S. was using it on thousands of prisoners. But to the best of our knowledge, three people have been waterboarded: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

    The key words here are “But to the best of our knowledge”.

    Because our knowledge about this is akin to our knowledge of communities on planets located on the other side of the universe.

    Oh well, see no evil, etc…

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 10:57 am

  19. David C. wrote:

    The key words here are “But to the best of our knowledge”.

    Yes, because that’s all we have to go on. We have to make assessments based on what is known, rather than on speculation and conspiracy theories.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 11:28 am

  20. David C. wrote:

    Also, the waterboarding issue is the most important because of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it is, in my opinion, the only one that is unambiguously a form of torture. The others depend on severity and duration. I know people disagree, but I’m not sure what waterboarding is if it’s not a form of torture.

    If evidence emerges that a bunch of low-level suspects were waterboarded, instead of just a few Al Qaeda leaders, my position on this issue will change.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 11:49 am

  21. a former european wrote:

    Sure, David C., go ahead and sound reasonable, but you’re not fooling me! You are obviously an american imperialistic, jingoistic exploiter of the protelariat and noble, innocent, indigenous peoples!

    As pernicious evildoers, particularly under Republican administrations, americans must be closely watched at all times to restrain their inherent evil, exploitive tendencies! Americans must therefore always abide by the most restrictive rules and codes of conduct, even if no one else does the same. Only by eternal vigilance of the progressive vanguard can the evil of the Great American Satan be contained!

    If adherence to the strictest possible code of moral conduct means that a major US city must perish in the flames of a thermonuclear fire, then we, the rest of the world, are willing to pay that price. In fact, no price in American blood is too high a price for the rest of us non-americans to pay, so long as the US remains morally pure. We will always respect your memory when you are all dead, then go back to watching Futbol.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 2:41 pm

  22. canuckistani wrote:

    Also, the waterboarding issue is the most important because of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it is, in my opinion, the only one that is unambiguously a form of torture. The others depend on severity and duration. I know people disagree, but I’m not sure what waterboarding is if it’s not a form of torture.

    Both sleep deprivation and stress positions have been ruled by the Israeli Supreme Court to be unlawful torture. I’ll use them as an authority here as Israel is not a nation with a soft spot for terrorists.

    If evidence emerges that a bunch of low-level suspects were waterboarded, instead of just a few Al Qaeda leaders, my position on this issue will change.

    Fair enough. It took me a fair amount of soul-searching to conclude that I would rather risk my family than benefit from torture, and I’m aware that it is not a clearcut issue.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 3:19 pm

  23. David C. wrote:

    Both sleep deprivation and stress positions have been ruled by the Israeli Supreme Court to be unlawful torture. I’ll use them as an authority here as Israel is not a nation with a soft spot for terrorists.

    I agree that sleep deprivation and stress positions can certainly be torture, but I think it depends on the severity/duration. The term “stress positions” itself is pretty ambiguous.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 3:39 pm

  24. Redhand wrote:

    Sure, David C., go ahead and sound reasonable, but you’re not fooling me!

    Major false assumption! David C. sounds like a Bush deadender to me on this issue. His reasoning seems to be, “So what if we tortured in violation of multiple US laws and treaty obligations? It’s OK: we were ‘protecting America.’ Trust us, and please don’t ask too many questions.”

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 6:16 pm

  25. Chris Huston wrote:

    Also, the waterboarding issue is the most important because of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it is, in my opinion, the only one that is unambiguously a form of torture. The others depend on severity and duration. I know people disagree, but I’m not sure what waterboarding is if it’s not a form of torture.

    This frees up a lot of space. So you are on record in stating the US has without any doubt, tortured at least three individuals. This, of course, would be a violation of the United Nations “CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
    and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
    Treatment or Punishment” which was ratified by the US. I think UN declarations can be classified as international law.

    An interesting further extent of that agreement in it’s articles:

    Article 2

    2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

    and

    Article 3

    1. No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

    the CIA black sites would be a violation of the first part of Article 3 then.

    What is more fundamental is that no circumstances every justify torture according to this. It’s a blanket statement that torture is wrong and illegal no matter whom it’s done to and for what reason.

    I don’t feel like I should need to make a compelling case for why that is. Yet your statements make me think I do:

    Again, international law has not been violated. And yes, who gets tortured matters a great deal.

    If evidence emerges that a bunch of low-level suspects were waterboarded, instead of just a few Al Qaeda leaders, my position on this issue will change.

    As far as I can tell through this then, your position is torture is okay as long as only the right people are tortured. It’s possible this is partially a matter of the evil people deserve it, but I would conclude you more likely see it as a utilitarian prospect. It’s a conclusion some people can make but is one that is fundamentally flawed.

    Let’s start with, as you pointed out, the long list of things extracted from Khalid Sheik Mohammad

    # A plan for a “second wave” of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York

    Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore

    A plan to blow up the Panama Canal

    Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter

    A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks

    A planned attack on “many” nightclubs in Thailand

    A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
    …

    And the list goes on with around 31 announced terrorist plans

    Looking at these, Peter Burgen noted:

    It all sounds very frightening, except that there is no indication that these plots were ever more than talk. The one exception is the plan by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who worked for KSM, who researched the feasibility of bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge with a pair of gas cutters in 2002, an enterprise akin to demolishing the Empire State Building with a firecracker. If that is all we could discover by waterboarding the most senior al-Qaeda member in our custody, it’s thin stuff indeed….

    Nothing better illustrates this point than KSM’s claim that he killed the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002. According to a Western official who was deeply involved in the Pearl investigation, there is simply no evidence that KSM killed him.

    All the information that KSM gave about the 9/11 plot after being captured, he’d already told to an Al-Jazeera journalist named Yosri Fouda in an interview beforehand. On KSM’s admissions, Yosri said

    I have no doubt that he would have liked to have been responsible for all the claims on the transcript, but was he? One thing that is missing, which I’m sure he was responsible for, is the Djerba operation in Tunisia: a tanker drove into a synagogue there in 2002, killing 21 people, after KSM gave the perpetrator his approval. That kind of “responsibility” is not uncommon. Maybe he forgot that one.

    So he seems to be taking responsibility for some outrages he might not have perpetrated, while keeping quiet about ones that suggest his hand. I think he has blurred the line between what he did and what he was hoping or plotting to do.
    …
    He is not a man of Allah but a man of action. I knew that when they were captured it would be KSM who talked first.

    From this evidence it seems to me that any information gained from KSM could have been gained without torture and may have been even more useful without all the junk he threw around, admitting to every plot he had ever imagined.

    But I worry this doesn’t end it because you seem fairly comfortable with torture already. Let’s take your counterexample of Iran.

    The Iranians capture CIA agents that they believe are gathering intelligence for an upcoming U.S. attack on Iran. So they waterboard them to extract information necessary to protect their country. Would that be a good thing? No. Would it be understandable, yes. Spies operate outside the law and do not have the same expectations for treatment if captured as do uniformed military. That goes double for terrorists.

    This quickly reminded me of an old news story before 9/11 changed everything. A US spy plane crashed in China and the people in the plane were captured. In the world where waterboarding is understandable, those men and women could have been subjected to it, China could say “We’ve waterboarded these spies to see if you were plotting anything against us” and the US would respond, “Well I suppose that’s understandable.”

    But arguing the particulars of this scenario or that one is immaterial. The real point is that we pay a heavy cost in influence and respect around the world when we toture anyone we have detained and it sets a precedent for other people to do the same to Americans at some point in the future. And if you think it will always be someone outside the law like a spy, then you are misinformed.

    It’s inevitable that someone we think is a terrorist and waterboard will end up being a taxi driver and not related to terrorism at all. And the way torture works, they may admit to plans to set up a death ray on the moon anyway to make the torture stop.

    We pride ourselves on being one of the greatest nations in the world but we destroy that image when we form such acts. Performing torture breeds more terrorists than it will ever manage to kill and makes us a backwards nation that will be derided and left behind by the rest of the world.

    We should stand up for some principles, that some acts are inherently unjust no matter who they are used on or what the circumstances. I don’t know what is more chilling, the idea people would assume that our actions wouldn’t result in American’s being tortured down the road, or that some may find that an acceptable result.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 6:55 pm

  26. libarbarian wrote:

    I agree that sleep deprivation and stress positions can certainly be torture, but I think it depends on the severity/duration. The term “stress positions” itself is pretty ambiguous.

    David,

    1. What is your definition of “torture”. I would say that anything that produces extreme, excrusciating pain would be torture. As a practical definition I would say that anything which causes a level of pain sufficient to produce a false confession in an average person, is “torture”. Hows that?

    2. The main reason the term “stress positions” is ambiguous is because it is a term that covers a wide scale of techniques. Some of these are “gray” and can be used in limited capacity without being “torture”. Others, however, are pretty unambiguously torture - at least they have been unambiguously considered “torture” throughout their recorded history of use including by those who used them. If the Romans, who were no bleeding heart liberals, considered something torture then I think we should too.*

    3. Suppose we do restrict ourselves only to the “gray” techniques and only to levels which fall short of “torture”. Do you really believe, or expect me to believe, that our enemies are so devoted that they are immune to the kind of traditional, time-tested, techniques used by agencies like the FBI for decades, but can be broken by being made very uncomfortable for reasonable periods of time?

    It doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t imagine anyone who could be immune to the FBIs mental techniques but broken by the kind of stuff I do in a normal kung fu class. Yeah, It would suck to be made to stand naked for long periods of time while women pretended to mock me (while attempting to hide their true awe :)). But seriously, it wouldn’t break me if I were at all dedicated to my cause or even if I wasn’t but truly feared the consequences of informing. If those ******** have access to my family I’m NOT going to talk because you slap me a few times and make me cold for a few hours. If I were breakable short of torture, I’d be capable of being turned without humiliating me and busting my ass. If I was so dedicated, or scared, that I was immune to offers and reason, you’d have to torture me to break me. Frankly, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be willing to face the risk of becoming a terrorist or an insurgent (which come with drastically shortened life-expectancies) but capable of being broken by anything short of real f***ing torture!!!.

    There is no such thing as “enhanced interrogation”. There is “torture” and then there is “**** that isn’t tough enough to work on someone who is guilty but plenty tough to be needlessly cruel to an innocent person”.

    *For example, we ARE using the Strappado
    , a “stress position” which I believe has always been considered “torture”. It can easily do permanent physical damage - I believe that particular “stress position” is primarily responsible for McCains limited arm mobility. Stay up too long and your own weight will eventually compress your lungs until you suffocate - just like with crucifiction.

    Furthermore, It is also difficult to predict how long you can safely leave an individual in them. One man might be able to last 6 hours without dying. A guy with asthma or another condition can die within an hour or two. Even the government admits that people have died at the hands of US interrogators. I’d bet 100:1 that almost all of the deaths by “suffocation” or “restricted respiration” or “asphyxiation” (see how many ways you can say “oxygen deprivation”) listed were caused by “stress positions” that either directly compressed the chest cavity or, like crucifiction, exhausted the person until their muscles gave our and their own weight did the work itself. These weren’t deliberate murders but happened because interrogators can’t be expected to know the medical conditions of their detainees and used techniques on people who could not handle them and left them unattended for too long. That report is from 2005. More recent reports have the death toll in US custody up over 100 - almost all of which died because they were left in a “stress position” until they were eventually unable to breathe.

    A dead innocent man is a moral tragedy. A dead guilty man has no intelligence value - and, supposedly, getting intelligence was the reason we did this **** to begin with.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 8:46 pm

  27. Alon Levy wrote:

    AFE, you’re displaying Kossack levels of shrillness here, and fast approaching Pandagonian ones.

    Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 9:09 pm

  28. a former european wrote:

    Alon: When you are marching in the progressive vanguard of the Revolution, no extremism is too much in order to bring the burning Red Truth to the masses.:)

    Seriously, though, I was just having a little fun. After thinking about it a while, I noticed that there seemed to be a certain number of assumptions and implications inherent in the posts criticizing the US in the WOT. I made those implied thoughts explicit. I thought it sounded shrill as well, but that is really what the critics are saying when you boil away the fluff and get down to the meat of the argument.

    For example, the idea that no information obtained by torture is ever worth it. Sounds great on a philosophical level, and lets critics congratulate themselves on their morally pure stance. This idea starts to fray when the risk is to allow another 9/11 to happen or, God forbid, a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack on a major US population center.

    As an outsider not threatened by any such consequences, it is very easy to say you will ignore such risks. For instance, if France where the primary Al-Quaeda target, it would be very easy for Americans to “take the high moral ground” and permit thousands of frenchmen to die. The idea that so long as its my neighbor getting screwed and not me allows me to morally preen and posture, does not strike me as being a particularly morally courageous stance.

    Other implications concern the implied evil intent of the US. This is no different than the view of the jihadis of the US as “Great Satan”, or the leftist/Soviet view as capitalist oppressor.

    There is also the implied noble purity of international organizations like the UN. Given its own admitted overwhelming culture of corruption, the endless scandals over things like the Iraqi oil-for- food program, and the multiple child prostitution scandals of the “blue helmets”, I cannot see that such ideas are anything but ideology driven.

    There are many other such implied notions and assumptions in the arguments on the side criticizing the US, but a full list would be a trip down leftist ideology lane, and that would take too long. I had hoped my posts made that point in a more brief summation.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 9:37 am

  29. David C. wrote:

    Chris,

    This frees up a lot of space. So you are on record in stating the US has without any doubt, tortured at least three individuals.

    In my opinion waterboarding constitutes torture, and therefore the U.S. has tortured the three Al Qaeda leaders, yes. But my opinion on waterboarding is not shared by many.

    the CIA black sites would be a violation of the first part of Article 3 then.

    We have no real idea what exactly went on at the so-called CIA black sites. I make the assumption that intelligence agencies violate various laws on a regular basis. That’s in the nature of intelligence operations.

    As far as I can tell through this then, your position is torture is okay as long as only the right people are tortured

    I’ve already covered this in an earlier thread but I’ll summarize it again. I don’t not believe torture is inherently wrong no matter what the case. Therefore, I believe there are certain circumstances where it might be justified.

    I would conclude you more likely see it as a utilitarian prospect.

    Not exactly. I don’t think it should be used lightly, be a first resort, or be used at all on mere suspects. It should be considered only in extreme cases.

    From this evidence it seems to me that any information gained from KSM could have been gained without torture

    That’s pure speculation. Neither you or I are in a position to know exactly what intelligence was gained from KSM. All we know is what the government claims.

    But I worry this doesn’t end it because you seem fairly comfortable with torture already

    I’m not at all comfortable with it, but I recognize that it happens and it is a reasonable expectation for the type of treatment a spy can expect.

    This quickly reminded me of an old news story before 9/11 changed everything. A US spy plane crashed in China and the people in the plane were captured. In the world where waterboarding is understandable, those men and women could have been subjected to it, China could say “We’ve waterboarded these spies to see if you were plotting anything against us” and the US would respond, “Well I suppose that’s understandable.”

    That’s a somewhat different situation because of the publicity and because reconaissance flights don’t fall into exactly the same category as spies operating inside enemy countries. But if China was actually a clear enemy of the U.S., the situation might have been similar.

    The real point is that we pay a heavy cost in influence and respect around the world when we toture anyone we have detained

    I don’t think we lose influence/respect with anyone that actually matters. I have little doubt that most countries facing the same situation would also resort to torture if they felt it necessary. The main difference would be that they’d probably be better at keeping it secret. In any event, we shouldn’t be doing it except in circumstances where it is critical to protect the U.S. And if it is, we shouldn’t be worried about what others think.

    when we toture anyone we have detained and it sets a precedent for other people to do the same to Americans at some point in the future. And if you think it will always be someone outside the law like a spy, then you are misinformed.

    This is a completely pointless line of argument. Americans already face torture if captured by our current enemies, and by most of our potential enemies.

    It’s inevitable that someone we think is a terrorist and waterboard will end up being a taxi driver and not related to terrorism at all.

    It is always possible mistakes can occur, which is why I’ve said that torture should only be used on people who are clearly not just suspects. There was no question about the identity and affiliation of the three who were waterboarded.

    And the way torture works, they may admit to plans to set up a death ray on the moon anyway to make the torture stop.

    This is a silly line of argument that ignores essential facts about interrogations. Information is either good, bad or somewhere in between, regardless of the method used to obtain it. Certain information can be confirmed independently. This is done all the time in standard police work. If information is confirmed thru investigation, it doesn’t matter whether it was extracted thru torture, or by any other method, it’s still good. And if torture can get that information the fastest, then torture might be the best method in that particular case. Information that can’t be confirmed independently is suspect no matter how it is obtained.

    We pride ourselves on being one of the greatest nations in the world but we destroy that image when we form such acts

    I disagree.

    We pride ourselves on being one of the greatest nations in the world but we destroy that image when we form such acts

    That is only true if we are torturing suspects who may be innocent, and I oppose that.

    that some acts are inherently unjust no matter who they are used on or what the circumstances

    I understand that some people reject the use of torture under all circumstance, and I respect that as far as their personal principles go. But I believe nations sometimes have to do dirty things in order to protect themselves. I don’t think it should be ruled out entirely. That doesn’t mean that we should make it legal and set up a torture corps, but we should be willing to violate our own laws and principles if it is truly necessary.

    people would assume that our actions wouldn’t result in American’s being tortured down the road, or that some may find that an acceptable result.

    Again, that’s a non sequitur. The likelihood of Americans being tortured in the future has little or no relationship to the fact that we waterboarded a couple of Al Qaeda leaders.

    David C. sounds like a Bush deadender to me on this issue.

    Redhand,

    I’m not sure what you mean by “deadender,” but from what we know at the current time, I defend Bush only with regard to the treatment of the three aforementioned terrorist leaders. If it turns out there was wide-spread use of torture techniques on low-level suspects, I’m not defending that. And I’m not defending their legal attempts to blur the line between what is and is not torture — although I think there is room for disagreement on some of those techniques. I see why they are doing it, but I don’t see it as a good thing.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 10:05 am

  30. David C. wrote:

    libarbarian,

    I don’t really disagree with much of anything you wrote. My only quibble would be that if these techniques are so ineffective, why are our interrogators using them in the first place? I think it’s a great oversimplification to think that just because someone has the courage required to be an insurgent or terrorist, they will automatically be able to resist these techniques. Everyone is different, has different motivation levels, and may have varying levels of commitment to protecting whatever information they hold. Again, I don’t think we should be using them on suspects, but I question the whole idea that they can’t be effective. As I mentioned in my response to Chris above, intelligence is either good, bad or somewhere in between. Some of it can be confirmed independently.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 10:24 am

  31. David C. wrote:

    I don’t not believe torture is inherently wrong no matter what the case.

    Ugh, writing quickly produces garble. That should have been, I don’t believe torture is inherently wrong in all cases.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 4:58 pm

  32. Alon Levy wrote:

    As an outsider not threatened by any such consequences, it is very easy to say you will ignore such risks.

    I live in Manhattan, and grew up in Tel Aviv, where at one point I took the city’s most frequently bombed bus line to school. Stephen works in (I believe) Lower Manhattan. Which high-profile terrorist target cities have you lived or worked in?

    (That’s the problem with making the other side’s assumptions explicit. The way the other side thinks is rarely the way you think they ought to think. That’s why all these liberal bloggers get conservatives so wrong: they all follow George Lakoff, who’s the master builder of strawconservatives.)

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 7:09 pm

  33. Alon Levy wrote:

    David, just two points:

    I don’t think we lose influence/respect with anyone that actually matters.

    You’ll be surprised. Before Abu Ghraib, every American prisoner in Iraq returned safely. After Abu Ghraib, we started seeing beheadings.

    My only quibble would be that if these techniques are so ineffective, why are our interrogators using them in the first place?

    It could be a toughness thing: I want to show everyone that I’m tough on terrorism and I’ll do whatever it takes, so I’ll violate some ordinary moral rule. We know Jack Bauer is tough because he won’t stop at anything to stop a terrorist attack, and in the world of 24, this always brings positive results.

    A similar thing happens domestically, when it comes to spending. Liberal educators keep saying small class size is a good thing, even though studies fail to show any correlation between class size and performance; if anything, reducing class size can hurt by requiring the hiring of less competent teachers. There’s still no question parents prefer small classes; in high-income school districts, public schools have per student funding approaching private school levels. It’s the same thinking: to show we really care about education we’re going to spend huge amounts of money.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 7:26 pm

  34. David C. wrote:

    You’ll be surprised. Before Abu Ghraib, every American prisoner in Iraq returned safely. After Abu Ghraib, we started seeing beheadings.

    Yeah, I’m sure Al Qaeda in Iraq, and other Islamist types have murdered Americans because of Abu Ghraib — a wartime incident that was condemned by the U.S. government, investigated, and resulted in jail sentences and ruined careers. I think their murderous ideology and lack of respect fo the lives of infidels might have a little more to do with it. Ask Margaret Hassan.

    It could be a toughness thing: I want to show everyone that I’m tough on terrorism and I’ll do whatever it takes, so I’ll violate some ordinary moral rule.

    Really? You think the anonomyous interrogaters who are doing the dirty work, are using these techniques because they want to look tough? That sounds like a real stretch. It seems a lot more likely they are using them because they are effective.

    Again, what you are saying approaches conspiracy theory thinking. It makes no sense for the adminstration to authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques if they don’t believe they are effective. Doing it is a negative politically — especially in the ham-handed way they’ve gone about it. Many argue it may hurt our image abroad, may be illegal, and requires convoluted legal maneuvers to justify it.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 8:22 pm

  35. a former european wrote:

    Alon: My “you” was a non-specific plural rather than specifically directed at you personally. Even so, whether you choose to put yourself at risk by potentially increasing the likelihood of a terrorist incident in order to stand your moral ground, what gives you the right to make such a decision for all of your neighbors as well?

    Security is a collective concern, and always has been. Even in ancient times, a village might close its gates as a precautionary measure when bandits or barbarians threatened. The fact that one man, or even a small group found this offensive as an “exclusionary” posture, and believed that the gates should always be left open in a welcoming, “brotherhood of Man” spirit was irrelevant. High moral principles often give way when someone is trying to stay alive or keep his family safe.

    I have no problem with somone else living up to their philosophical or moral principles. If a dedicated pacifist wants to approach Genghis Khan and the Mongol Horde to teach them non-violence and sing Kumbaya, more power to him. It is when that person wants me to go along with their idiocy that I have a problem with their approach.

    I disagree with those who favor unilateral US disarmament, or any other position which weakens us against our foes. I also believe in things like fairness and reciprocity. Our legal system has, as a fundamental basis for enforcing contracts, the requirement of mutuality of obligation. This is justice. Each side undertakes and promises to perform some obligation to the other. The failure or breach of one side to the contract, typically excuses the performance of the other.

    The critics of US policy on the WOT typically ignore any ideas of mutuality or reciprocity, and demand unilateral obligations on the part of the US only. Our enemies, whether the terrorists at present, or the Soviets back in Cold War days, are always given a free pass to act as they will.

    Thus, the “world community” turns a blind eye to terrorist atrocities, torture, beheadings, etc, just like in a former day they turned a blind eye to the Soviet concentration camps in the Gulag. Grey area types of torture by the US, like waterboarding, are loudly condemned while unmistakeable, actual torture by our enemies is excused, or ignored.

    For the US, accordingly, there is never a level playing field.

    The very idea of the Geneva Conventions and related treaties arose out of the age-old european concept of the Rules of War. These rules were enforced by the idea of reciprocity. In other words, you treated enemy combatants well so they would do the same for your captured soldiers. In conflicts were one side disregarded the rules of war, the other would typically respond in kind and cries of “no quarter” would be heard.

    Here, the critics of the US believe that americans should always be held to the highest possible standards re the rules of war, even where their enemies don’t. Non-signatories to treaties are to be given the full protection of same anyway, even when they spit upon such conventions.

    All-in-all, in wartime, the placement of non-reciprocal restrictions on the US is foolish and detrimental to US interests. The US should have learned its lesson about the imposition of artificial and unrealistic rules of engagment during wartime long-since. From Truman’s decision to not destroy the Yalu bridges in Korea (permission was only given to bomb “half” of a bridge), thus permitting the Chinese counteroffensive, to Vietnam’s ridiculous “DMZ”, where US troops were forbidden to cross, but North Vietnamese could freely do so. Does the “world community” still praise us for the nobility of our one-sided adherence to that fictitious concept?

    All of these restriction did nothing but hamper the US war effort, while giving corresponding advantages to our enemies. If waterboarding or similar measures help us win the WOT, then I support it. I would rather be the victor, than a noble loser.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 8:39 pm

  36. Alon Levy wrote:

    I think their murderous ideology and lack of respect fo the lives of infidels might have a little more to do with it.

    So why did they not behead American prisoners before Abu Ghraib? Is there some obscure rule that says that for the first year of a conflict prisoners ought to be treated with dignity, but subsequently they should be beheaded?

    Really? You think the anonomyous interrogaters who are doing the dirty work, are using these techniques because they want to look tough? That sounds like a real stretch. It seems a lot more likely they are using them because they are effective.

    Oh, I’m not saying torturers think what they do is ineffective. They think it’s necessary, just like teachers’ unions and community activists really do think smaller class size will boost student performance. People believe things that make them feel better about their social roles: the upper class really does believe the poor are lazy, and the underclass really does believe that success is based on greed and viciousness. No wonder that some CIA agents think that national security depends on their secrecy and violence: that’s what the agency’s famous for.

    In addition, people who’re given power over others tend to abuse it. It’s like in Stanford prison experiment: prison guards abuse prisoners, and prisoners do their best to climb up the social hierarchy and abuse lower-ranked prisoners.

    It doesn’t explain why some politicians would defend that, but the Bush administration is too delusional to subscribe to the rules of ordinary politics. To crack down on torture would piss off its most supportive constituencies; it would placate the center, but aside from issues of race and immigration, which he doesn’t consider so important as taxes or Iraq, Bush has never cared about what anyone to his left thinks.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 9:12 pm

  37. Alon Levy wrote:

    Even so, whether you choose to put yourself at risk by potentially increasing the likelihood of a terrorist incident in order to stand your moral ground, what gives you the right to make such a decision for all of your neighbors as well?

    What makes you think I’m endangering those around me? I’ll tell you that American endorsement of torture makes people hate America, which makes it likelier that there will be another terrorist attack. So will almost everyone who lives in New York or San Francisco. The members of Congress whose districts lie entirely in New York City voted 7-4 against the Iraq War.

    You seem to think people have a social duty to agree with you. That’s far more authoritarian than thinking human rights don’t stop at the USA’s borders.

    Posted 12 Apr 2008 at 9:26 pm

  38. canuckistani wrote:

    All of these restriction did nothing but hamper the US war effort, while giving corresponding advantages to our enemies. If waterboarding or similar measures help us win the WOT, then I support it. I would rather be the victor, than a noble loser.

    The you will lose either way. You’ll die with your head up or you’ll turn a free country into a tyranny.

    Personally, I believe that we are fighting a war of ideas and not just bombs. And I believe that freedom and human rights will prevail in the long run because our ideas are stronger, but only if we don’t compromise them for temporary security.
    If we compromise, we have nothing to offer except a different brand of force. And who in the world will throw off their chains in order to put on a different set of chains?

    Posted 13 Apr 2008 at 1:13 am

  39. David C. wrote:

    So why did they not behead American prisoners before Abu Ghraib?

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Oh, I’m not saying torturers think what they do is ineffective.

    Ok, but that sounded like what you were saying before when you gave your theory about using those techiques in order to appear tough.

    In addition, people who’re given power over others tend to abuse it

    That’s definitely happens, although I don’t think you can generalize about all those in power. But there are certainly plenty of people who will abuse power when they have it.

    but the Bush administration is too delusional to subscribe to the rules of ordinary politics.

    That may be true, but it still seems to be a real reach to argue that they would do something that politically risky unless they felt it was necessary and/or effective.

    The you will lose either way. You’ll die with your head up or you’ll turn a free country into a tyranny.

    That’s where I think you take reasonable exceptions to U.S. policy and go way overboard into ridiculous hyperbole. How the U.S. treats some terrorist suspects in a dirty war is unlikely to change the fundamental nature of the U.S. in almost any way. There have always been increases in state power, abuses, and violations of our normal principles in wartime. The only thing different now, is that the public knows more about what the government is doing because of information technology.

    Posted 13 Apr 2008 at 10:13 am

  40. Alon Levy wrote:

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Maybe. It does, however, imply that sweeping statements like “The terrorists don’t care how Americans treat prisoners” may not be as ironclad as you think they are.

    Posted 14 Apr 2008 at 3:09 pm

  41. libarbarian wrote:

    David,

    My only quibble would be that if these techniques are so ineffective, why are our interrogators using them in the first place?

    1. It has been WIDELY reported that the cause of this was the horrible lack of intelligence we were getting in the early occupation and Rumsfelds instruction to “gitmoize” Abu Ghraib was his way of addressing this lack of intelligence. As I said earlier, despite the administration’s claim that Abu Ghraib was done by rogue soldiers, the fact that everyone of the pictures at Abu Ghraib involves techniques the administration claims the right to use - like stress positions, humiliation, etc. - makes me believe this to be true.

    The moment we hit a snag, techniques initially meant to be applied only to a few were quickly adopted to be used on thousands of detainees as Rumsfeld turned to them as a weapon of first resort. Of course, the quality of intelligence coming out of Abu Ghraib is reported to have stayed awful.

    Unlike waterboarding, these techniques were NOT, and I believe still are not, restricted to special orders or rules requiring an interrogator to be present.

    2. I think you are making the mistake, sometimes reasonable, of assuming expertise of the interrogators using them. Not everyone using these is an interrogator and not every interrogator really has experience in using these techniques as part of an effective intelligence gather operation.

    Interrogators drawn from domestic law enforcement or corrections (or even military police) have NO experience using “enhanced interrogations” to get intelligence - we dont have a policy of doing that stuff to our own yet. What experience any one may have sadly comes not from intelligence gathering but from forcing confessions out of people or simply abusing an inmate in their care. Neither of these experiences is helpful in getting truthful, accurate, intelligence out of people. If anything, experience in beating confessions out of people is most likely to continue to lead to behavior that produces … false confessions.

    Frankly, most of our institutional knowledge comes from programs designed to train our people to resist abuse by others. The people studying them did not study them from the point of view of the interrogator but simply from the point of view of the victim so the focus was on how to resist the pain and not how to use them to gather intelligence. Im sure they have some useful knowledge, but knowing how to test an individual to not give up info is not the same as knowing how to interrogate many people, sifting the wheat from the chaff, and turn it into a finished intelligence product.

    3. My main theory though is pretty simple. Some administration officials wanted, and still want, to expand the use of harsher techniques and “real torture”. Others, in the administration and in the agencies responsible, resisted. Instead of looking for a coherent approach what we got fit the classic pattern of “design by committee” where they reached a compromise between the torturers and non-torturers by looking for techniques that would make someone as miserable as possible without being “torture”.

    Again, I don’t think we should be using them on suspects

    I think I agree entirely and am glad to see you do not naively equate “suspected terrorist” and “terrorist” as so many other do.

    The problem is that I am pretty sure we ARE using them on suspects … in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT (story on German mistaken for a terrorist).

    Precisely because these techniques fall short of torture there is even more danger/liklihood that they will be viewed as acceptable and become a weapon of first resort.

    I question the whole idea that they can’t be effective

    First, I should have been more specific - I don’t not believe they are effective en masse as a matter of policy.

    You seem to think they are not so there no point is explaining why something that might be able to work in some circumstances can still be a bad thing to do in large numbers. In summation - It is possible to win playing 2-7 preflop but it would be a horrible strategy to play it regularly.

    As I have said, I think you are wrong and are really underestimating the frequency with which we are using these techniques that are not torture but still very harsh and terribly unpleasant to go through, especially if you are innocent and have no information to give up.

    Posted 14 Apr 2008 at 9:34 pm

« A reverse Friedman
Intelligent Design? »