Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: 666
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Do y’all remember a year ago, when Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) sponsored a ban on torture by making the Army follow its own field manual? Well, some clever buggers have figured out how to get around that. They’re re-writing the field manual to remove Geneva.
O, happy day!
As the LA Times reports:
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans “humiliating and degrading treatment,” according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military’s decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.
The article goes on to say:
… the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult for the administration to portray such incidents [as Abu Ghraib and Haditha] as aberrations. And it undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.“The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy torturing people,” said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international law at Yale Law School. “Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a lot of fuel on the fire.”
To call this short-sighted, un-American, morally repugnant, and just plain stupid, understates the stituation. Has anyone thought of the implications for our own captured troops in another war, in another place, ten or twenty years from now, if our foe of that moment decides to follow our own field manual?
The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions] was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States’ ability to question detainees.
Well, yes. The purpose of Article 3 is to restrict the abilities of belligerants to question detainees. What did they think it was for?
This nonsense has been opposed by various (loyal, intelligent, patriotic) elements within the Pentagon. But those men and women of good will have concluded that it’s useless with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in charge:
The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.
I’m going to advocate courts-martial for anyone in the US Armed Forces who helped this attempt to make torture part of US policy.
I think this is the point where any pretence of it being a few bad apples has to be rejected.
Even if it might once, long ago, have not been a pretence.
This is sickening. And I'm tired of conservatives complaining that my dedication to humane principles is in some way naive. The whole point of living in a civilized country is that we don't treat people this way, even when they are the bad guys who want to kill us. Yes, that means that maybe some of them get through and actually do kill us. That's what honor, integrity, character, is all about. You know you hold a principle when it costs you something. I support the principles in the Geneva Convention, even if it means that because a few nutcases weren't tortured, I might get my legs blown off from a car bomb. I live in NYC, I'm fully aware of the impact and horror of terrorism. I want my country to be civilized. There will always be barbarians who want to kill me and my people. I want them dealt with to the full extent of the law, and I want that law to be civil and humane.
I'm really tired of "conservatives" claiming they hold moral high ground. This is as clear a case of a government decision on morality as there can possibly be, and my government is on the wrong side.
The people who are behind this deserve horsewhipping, tarring, feathering, and being marched in chains from Boston to Minuteman National Park and thrown from the bridge there (they won't drown, it's a low bridge and shallow water).
And oh, yeah, there should be a bonfire of with copies of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independent and hot ash from the fire dumped on them, too.
This gives a strange nostalgic feeling to watching Bridge on the River Kwai's initial confrontation between the two main characters.
As Sean Bosker wrote, this is insane.
Being a "civilized" nation or person means rising above the childish and psychopathic reaction of "Oh yeah, well if you do that to me, then I'll do this to you."
Torture is not about getting information, it is a rationalization for revenge. Leaving aside the question of being naive, history and various studies have proven that torture is ineffective.
It is persuasion -- through fear and pain -- to get someone to say what you want them to say. Now while I can understand how this idea may be attractive to the current administration, it is not going to make us safer, if anything, the opposite is likely true.
Likewise, the opposition argument that this is fine because these are terrorists, nutcases, or "islamofascists" is essentially a circular argument ... especially once torture is added to the mix:
It's okay to torture this guy because he's a terrorist. How do you know he's a terrorist? He confessed under torture.
There have been enough rumors floating around that I am really not comfortable with trusting anyone currently associated with this administration to accurately and justly figure out who is really a terrorist and therefore okay to torture.
As it happens I was reading an article about this yesterday -- I think in Newsweek -- and the grans kicker is that in addition to the above, the armed forces are/were trying to get the new manual approved through Congress while classifying the entire section on interrogation techniques, and not showing this section to Congress at all.
Yet at the same time, the US doesn't torture, respects human rights, and is dedicated to promoting democracy around the world. The Schmuck Administration has cornered the market on cognitive dissonance.
It makes one more prosecution argument for the war crimes trial of W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief, and senior defense officials.
Questions for myself:
Still proud to be a veteran? No.
Still proud to have been an Army man? No.
Still proud to be an American? No.
David S. Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States’ ability to question detainees.
Exactly! And that's what we want. However, based on what I know of torture, it will not significantly restrict the US's ability to question detainees effectively.
This administration has clearly crossed a line with regard to how detainees are treated. A rose by any other name and all that....
The bottom line of every law is less about the wording and more about the intent. Because words are merely pointers TO the principles they describe, it is nothing short of ignorant (at best; deceitful at worst) to play with the words themselves.
Which is precisely what is done whenever loopholes are exploited. What are loopholes but inevitable gaps between the principles themselves and the pointers to those principles (i.e., "words")?
I've no intention of introducing any sort of religious dynamic into this discussion but the source of this next quote is a religious text:
"The letter of the law brings death, but the spirit of the law brings life and peace."
This is a sage observation that need not impose any sort of religious view on this discussion: what is important in matters of law is understanding the intent--the spirit--of what is written; focusing on the words just misses the point entirely.
So I've said it a few different ways in the hopes that others who may stumble upon this comment will 'get it' in ways that, until now, have eluded their awareness and comprehension. Obviously those who have commented already in this thread seem to 'get it' so my point is not so much for you but for those yet to read and comment.
If a free press remains a part of our future, they will almost certainly look back upon this period with loathing amazement: what the h3ll is this administration doing and, perhaps more important, why the h3ll are we--the people--allowing it to occur?
Y'know, I've been thinking.
It seems to me that too many of the 'We have to get TOUGH with America's enemies!!!11!one!!eleventy1!' types have an airy-fairy John-Wayne-movie-geek attitude about what effects ubermacho behavior has on other people.
But if you ask 'em, "Would that (torture, invasion, Draconian sanctions, fill-in-the-blank-here) work on YOU?" they will say, to a man, "No way!"
If it won't work on you, why the hell would it work on the other guy?
Just sayin'.
I've long been disgusted with this administration; now it's beginning to make me nauseated to read the news.
I figured out back when I was 10 or so, and learning about witchcraft trials, that under sufficient torture people will say whatever you want them to say. The more torture you apply, the less reliable the information is. Somehow this administration hasn't come to that realization yet. Are they idiots, or just evil? Oh, wait...they're both. Never mind.
what the h3ll is this administration doing?
The administration is continuously appealing to the lowest common denominator, fear, and then whipping up the fervor that fear gives, violence. They are creating a completely one-dimensional administration. Fear -> Violence. If the people are afraid, they'll resort to and support resorting to, violence. Which makes sense from Bush's perspective, because he's an idiot, so he doesn't have anything intelligent to offer. It isn't like the man is a diplomat or a stateman. He's a buffoon. All he's got is a big f'ing stick, called the US military, which he is draining the life-blood out of as he whacks one thing after another.
Torture is just an extension of fear->violence. The answer to everything when you're overcome by fear is violence, and torture is just more violence.
I think part of the deal with Bush's in-the-gutter popularity numbers right now is that people are becoming less afraid of the phantoms that Bush has used to invoke fear and justify violence. But Bush doesn't know how to do anything else other than rattle someone else's sword.
The recent attempt to revive the gay-marriage-ban-ammendment, is simply trying to find something else to make people afraid of. "My god, gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage!"
I'm not surprised that the Pentagon folks who oppose torture say they'll have to wait till Bush is out of office. His entire presidency is defined by fear and his response is always violence. He doesn't have the brains to do anything else. And taking away his one and only tool is something he'll fight to the end.
If anyone at the Hague calls, please tell them they can have these guys, right now. Bush we can deal with; it's the rest of them that need to be taken out for a nice trial.
What part of "Treaties shall have the force of Law" don't they understand?
I know. They don't respect the Law, either. They make me ashamed.
Bruce, I'm sorry.
Cynthia, I'll go along with "evil", or at least cruel and lawless, but they are very smart. I fear it is we, or at least the public en masse, who are the fools.
But if you ask 'em, "Would that (torture, invasion, Draconian sanctions, fill-in-the-blank-here) work on YOU?" they will say, to a man, "No way!"
But fear does not allow that sort of empathic relation. If you're living in fear, you can't put yourself in the other person's shoes. It's fight or flight. Kill or run. And to be able to kill someone requires, on some level, a lack of empathy towards them. Self-defense requires a level of selfishness, putting your survival above someone elses. Which isn't wrong, it's just that when someone is gripped by fear (and their support of violence is a good indicator for most people that they're afraid), I don't know if asking them to be empathic will stop the fear, or maybe just stop that particular flavor of violence, i.e. torture, while keeping other forms of violence in place, such as war.
You know what I find most frightening and sickening?
The people on this board have seen this. Some of you have probably written it. I've read this comic, this book, seen this movie. We are on the slope already. Unless someone truly visionary comes along to show a better way--and I don't see that person right now--we all know where this will end.
We are all Winston now.
[delurking]
"Has anyone thought of the implications for our own captured troops in another war, in another place, ten or twenty years from now, if our foe of that moment decides to follow our own field manual?"
I suspect that the folks in charge have not, because they believe the situation will never arise. In the Brave New Pax Americana (c.f. PNAC), America is/was/will always be The Good Guys, and will never have to worry about such Bad Things happening.
[rant] How the *hell* can people be that stupid?!? Even a passing familiarity with history shows that those who think they're somehow special, that the ebb and flow of power and history will pass them by, are *always* wrong in the end, frequently at great cost to them and everyone around them. What are they thinking? Is there some sort of Rapture of the DC, all the fun of nitrogen narcosis without the hassle of scuba gear? [/rant]
A few years ago I wouldn't have worried about posting something like this with my name attached. And if the next administration is more tolerant of reality-based discussion, maybe I'll be outspoken again. But not today.
[relurking]
Remember that the Spanish Inquisition abolished torture in their courts on the grounds that it doesn't yield true information.
Say what you will about the Spanish Inquisition, you have to admit that they had a certain ... expertise ... in the matter.
(Speaking of the Inquisition, for the first twenty years of its existence it wasn't allowed torture at all. When torture was introduced it was under strict guidelines: torture was to be applied only once, it was supposed to be of such a manner and degree that it did not imperil life or limb, and it was only supposed to be applied when manifold and weighty proofs showed that the accused was guilty and was lying. Torture was only supposed to be applied when all other expedients had already been exhausted. Boy does that ever sound familiar....)
We knew they were ignoring it, but this is just too blatent.
An eye for an eye is not our law!
Wasn't there a signing statement added to the anti torture bill that exempted the executive branch (including the military) from adherance to provisions therein?
Unless someone truly visionary comes along to show a better way
I'd be happy if torture stopped showing up in fiction as acceptable. As much as I liked "Batman Begins", I cringed when batman snared the dirty cop with his grappling gun, reeled him up several stories, then dropped him and realed him back in a couple times to get information. I kept thinking about the MP's using dogs to scare information out of detainees. Of course, when Batman does it, it works, he gets the information he needed, and he isn't portrayed as sadistic. But the moral of that little story is "torture works". Sure, it's only a movie, sure its a cartoon movie to boot, but that one scene could have been any two people, a rope, and a winch.
For that matter, after about the first half-season of 24 I couldn't watch any more; suspenseful thriller, yup, maybe. But the lavish endorsement of ends justifying the most garishly awful means was a little too much like Real Life.
Oh, and for the clueless like me, what's the "new black" refer to?
Greg London:
Don't worry about the effect of Batman; everyone knows he's a comic book character and that hanging someone off the side of a building is over-the-top and unlikely.
Worry about Jack Bauer. Energizer Bunny Jack gets the truth, the whole truth, so help him God. Break a few fingers, inject a little pentothol... five minutes and he's off to save the country! And if the Bad Guys go after him in kind? Why, he has a convenient heart attack and has to be resuscitated. Once a week in your living room, This Is The New America Now.
Re: new black
It's from fashion. Black is out, so... orange is the new black!
Jack Bauer ... 24
I haven't seen a single episode of "24". Something about the previews didn't appeal to me. I think I know why now.
If it won't work on you, why the hell would it work on the other guy?
Excellent point, Renee. I'm going to try and use that the next time I debate this issue with my coworkers.
Congressional oversight, anyone? Through my rage and disgust I dimly recall that we are supposed to have it. Where is it? What are these %$#^&% guys doing to earn their pay? The way the military does its job is expressly under the control of Congress (Article 1, Section 8.) Moreover, "All treaties made... under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." (Article 6) which the President is bound by his oath to support, protect, and defend.
Damn them all, for what they are doing to our country.
I hate to be proven right, but this is why I called McCain a feckless piece of shit back in January and his willingness to pretend to spine (worse than Spector, who at least caves in publically) and then fold because "The Party" (and that it, seems, in the person of Bush) wants it to go the other way.
The worst part of this, they can make the violations of Geneva part of the FM, and classify that portion of it.
Then (when we have a president, and an army, breakig the law of the land, in the form of a ratified treaty) they will arrest anyone who reports on the violations, because they are violating State Secrets.
I'm getting worried. I hate to speak my fear aloud because they make me seem like a nutjob conspiracy theorist/black helicopter loony, but I'm getting worried.
It's from fashion. Black is out, so... orange is the new black!
Duh. No wonder I didnt' get it. I have absolutely no fashion sense.
Oh, on another side note, I just realized that "24" is on Fox "We Report, You Decide." Network, so, maybe Jack Bauer's character isn't just fiction, but rather a suggestion.
I don't know. I sort of think that the last thing we need is a visionary. I've had enough vision from the right and from the left to last me a life time--and I'm only 35.
How about we get someone who has no vision at all, who doesn't want to create an America is his/her own image, but is simply able to read and understand the Constitution and is willing to govern a nation by it?
I'd take that, if I could get it.
Lizzy L: Take a look at Glenn Greenwald today. He points to some pieces of hope in the wind.
Me, I can tell you what I know, Torture doesn't work. I don't know why we are supposed to be able to do what no one else has managed and make it work. The inquisition, the French in Algeria, Hussein, all of them used it, all of them failed.
We used to not use it, and we used to get good info, on a reliable basis.
Now... I'm not ashamed of my service, not yet, because I've not done anything to be ashamed of (which is a self-serving, because self-evaluated, claim). I don't know how much longer I can keep serving. I am afraid I may be put to the test, and I would really hate to find myself so weak as to do evil things to avoid the repercussions of refusing the orders.
How about we get someone who...is simply able to read and understand the Constitution and is willing to govern a nation by it?
Sarah S, such a person might indeed seem visionary, compared to our present administration, which is delusional.
Oh, this makes me so, so sad.
As a human being in the 21st century, I hate that the most influential nation of our time, and a great democracy, is under leadership that is daily putting more and more distance between themselves and the moral high-ground.
As a Brit, I hate that my own country is probably going to be following that disasterous lead sometime very soon, unless a LOT of care is taken.
And as a Christian, I hate that the "Christian" right seems unable to comprehend the simple meaning of "Turn the other cheek", to understand that the point of being 'the good guy' is having to BE the good guy, NOT getting to use any means neccessary to beat the opposition, to realise that God ISN'T on their side regardless of their actions. As someone once said (I can't remember who, or the exact wording): "God isn't on YOUR side. He never has been, never will be. Maybe, if you work hard at it, pay attention and keep your eyes very wide open, especially when they're turned inwards, once in a while you'll get to be on his. Maybe."
So in conclusion, sadness. And sympathy for all you sane individuals on the other side of the pond. I hope things turn around somehow.
The people who are behind this deserve horsewhipping, tarring, feathering, and being marched in chains from Boston to Minuteman National Park and thrown from the bridge there (they won't drown, it's a low bridge and shallow water).
Can I point out that, as a response to the U.S.'s now-routine use of torture this is really going in the wrong direction? This is clearly true as a matter of rhetoric -- but I would even say it is more than that (we have to be careful about the normalizing of violence in political language). So no, they shouldn't be horsewhipped or tarred or feathered or thrown in water whether or not they would drown. Instead, I'd suggest a good, old-fashioned trial for war crimes, complete with all the legal protections: convict the guilty and let them sit in small cells for the rest of their days. How about that?
Thanks, Terry. I read Glenn's post, and then the comments. Perhaps Glenn (and you) are right and such an article is a sign of hope, but I am not especially heartened. One mild article does not go far to counter the cacaphony and chatter of Fox News and its friends.
On the other hand, if Francine Busby down in San Diego wins, I will be very happy. At this point, the only thing that can change the situation, in my view, is voting out the current administration. When I see that start to happen, I will rejoice.
Re: 24, I was just thinking the other day... wouldn't it be instructive to have next season go a little differently? Jack does his thing, gets the info, runs off to save the world and everything goes to hell because d'oh! The dude he tortured lied to save his skin.
It's happened a time or two to lesser degrees on Lost, but I think America needs something flashier in order to actually get the point.
Via Josh Marshall:
From CBSNews: "U.S. officials believe Canadian arrests over the weekend and three recent domestic incidents in the United States are evidence the U.S. will soon be hit again by a terrorist attack. Privately, they say, they'd be surprised if it didn't come by the end of the year, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart in a CBS News exclusive."
Like, two weeks before the election?
What I wanna say to all the neocons crowing about the Canadian arrests:
"Look! Seventeen arrests! And no foreign invasions or illegal wiretaps in sight!
The problem is that torture does work. But not for gathering intelligence. What it is useful for is the suppression of internal dissent.
Pesky trade unionists, politcal opponents, and irritating intellectuals all watch their tongues a lot more closely after seeing one of their friends without fingernails. How could any authoritarian resist the temptation? Couple that temptation with our faith-based administration--Americans always do the right things because, gosh, they're American!--and the outright embrace of bigotry by the Republican party, and we have the makings of a perfect storm.
Wrenlet:
I enjoy 24 as a thriller, but have often been made uncomfortable by the "torture works" scenes. (This season it didn't actually seem to work all that well, but was still the first method of interrogation, and didn't backfire.)
Given the thinly-disguised criticism of the current administration in the season that just ended, I would not be at all surprised if the writers do something like you suggested. My respect for them would increase greatly.
The only place torture actually works as a way to get good information is in the movies. It's a plot device, a convention; it's more visually interesting than some guy sitting in a room going over three thousand tip sheets.
Here, I'll save someone some time:
[token drive-by smuggery]
I'm shocked that You People are still worrying about this when you said nothing when islamofascists rioted about a cartoon.
[/token drive-by smuggery]
Oh, and while I'm at it:
[quivering moralist]
How can you worry about terrorists' rights when activist judges are letting gay people get married! We've got to do something . . . for the sake of the children!
[/quivering moralist]
Trolls: Now that I've made your points for you, you may return to your bridges.
... to Minuteman National Park and thrown from the bridge there (they won't drown, it's a low bridge and shallow water).
Actually, there's been a lot of rain lately, the water isn't all that shallow right now.
That line of 'for the sake of the children' doesn't wash with me. I keep getting the impression that people who use the phrase are telling me that anyone who grows up without whatever brand of coddling they're peddling is destined to become a serial-killing crack whore anarchist, or a depressed dishrag fattie living on fast food and reality TV, or maybe just some loser homeless bum living off handouts... who is secretly a serial-killing crack whore anarchist.
Um... no. After all, they grew up without the coddling and they aren't (insert awful destiny here).
Oh, wait. I see my problem. I'm asking for empathy again. Silly me.
If I were Osama bin Laden I'd aim for two weeks before the election for my next terror attack. He'll do anything to keep Bush and the Republicans in office. They're his best friends.
Wouldn't a terror attack actually damage the chances of Bush and co? I mean, considering that so much of what they've done has been to keep y'all "safe" from terror attacks, wouldn't it be proof of their failure?
I'm being niave, aren't I? Because fear leads to a desire for visible vengeance, and the current administration has that one well and truly nailed. Sigh...
Anyone who has publicly sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and who violates that oath again and again is a traitor. As I recall, the traditional penalty for treason is being shot.
'nuf said.
If (God forbid) we are attacked two weeks before the election, I think it's a toss-up which way the majority reaction goes. Some number of people will support the view that a new terrorist attack proves that Bushco's decisions and tactics are flawed, wrong-headed, and not keeping us safe. If the attack happens to be, for example, a bomb in an uninspected container on a ship docked at a U.S. port, more people will find this point of view credible. Some number of people will support the view that an attack proves that Mr. Bush and friends have not been given enough power, and that we should probably suspend the Constitution. I have NO FUCKING CLUE which way the country will go.
BTW, as I was writing the above I had the same reaction as Anonymous Coward. If the NSA reads this e-mail and some filtering software filters out and marks my description of an attack, above, as suspect, then presumably my name, and the names of my friends, and perhaps the e-mail address of everyone who posts on ML, will end up on a list somewhere. It's insane. I don't know whether I should reference Gilbert and Sullivan, or Kafka.
Glenn Greenwald's post holds out a glimmer of hope, but the post on his blog that should really be read is the one below it, by Anonymous Liberal. He/she expresses the feelings expressed in these comments in long form.
I was on active duty a long time ago, stationed at an antiseptic Navy telecomm station in Japan a long way away from 'Nam, but when some of the revelations of what we did there began to come out I was repulsed and embarrassed for my country and my uniform. I never wanted to feel that way again, but now I do.
Gorge Bush's Amerika...
What ever happened to the oaths of serving officers military and civilian to protect and uphold the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" ?
What Nixon did was a trivial petty infraction like parking in a handicapped spot compared to vast the array of offenses and insults to US and international treaty law perpetrated by Torquemada from Texas, Savonorola who took over from the di'Medici and turned the area into a narrow-minded vicious dictatorial theocracy censoring, banning, burning, and putting "deviants" to death...
=========
Oust the usurpers, -now-, and send them to the World Court for trial for crimes against humanity (Geneva Convention violations in Iraq, starting no later than the failure to secure museums, schools, libraries, waterworks, government offices and records, failure to round up soldiers and review their records before any release into civilian status instead of allowing de facto demustering regardless of military record as regard involuntary inductee or enthusiastic, and participant committing atrocies, and standing aside smiling benevolently literally in the fact of massive looting and arson and theft, demonstrating a complete disregard and disrespect for providing safety and security for the population, private property, and the national and international heritage of schools, books, archives, antiquities, infrasture for running a civilization, and archaeological sites. The lawlessness ignored by the USA has escalate to robbery, bribery, kidnapping, rape, murder, sectarian warfare, suppression of women, violent murderous intolerance... all the fault of the fascist monster falsely placed in the office of the President of the USA.
I suppose I should have left the horsewhipping out... the tarring and feathering though has the historically precedent of being something the Sons of Liberty did. Marching people out to the bridge (but not in chains) is what happened April 18, 1775 and gets re-enacted every year in commemoration. They weren't tossed over the bridge, but the water in Boston Harbor is deeper and dumping raw sewage into Boston Harbor got banned....
There's a big statue of Samuel Adams, first President of the United States (under the Article of Confederation) in front of Faneuil Hall in Boston. What it says on the base, is so very different that the values and attitudes of the Republicraps and one G. Walker Bush... Patriot's Days was only a month and a half ago. I thought about the irony...
I've said it before and I'll say it again: American justice is a lie and a travesty while Bush is anywhere but prison.
And that goes for all his cronies, and whatever Pentagonal pushead thought up this latest scheme.
Just to play "devil's advocate" (since today *is* 6/6/06, after all... ;) )
- neocons take the position of "if he pulls a knife, you pull a gun". So in answer to Renee's "would those tactics work on you," they'd say no, because we'd destroy them first.
- neocons also claim that negotiation = appeasement, and point to Neville Chamberlain as proof.
- in response to the "if we torture them, they'll torture us" argument, neocons say "they're already torturing/beheading/etc. Our torture is much nicer than their torture anyway, so to complain about it makes you a wussy unpatriotic liberal with warped priorities."
- to add to what I said above, neocons will also point out how "liberals" give much publicity to "American" wrongs, but completely ignore those perpetrated by Islamists (e.g. abuse of women).
At any rate, that's what I gleaned from surfing sites such as Free Republic and Right-Thinking from the Left Coast.
And like it or not, fear works. All the neocons have to say is "you'll be wearing burkas if the Democrats win", and people immediately try to make sure that doesn't happen.
On another note, I understand that support for right-wing parties went UP in Europe after the Muhammed cartoon fiasco.
Has anyone thought of the implications for our own captured troops in another war, in another place, ten or twenty years from now, if our foe of that moment decides to follow our own field manual?It occurs to me that the foe of that moment might indeed be following the US field manual, if back in the noughties it was a close ally that received military training and advice from the US.
And given our record of training our future enemies, that seems likely, Gag.
My husband was a POW during the Vietnam War, and was tortured by his captors. The bamboo infection under and in his toenails remained until the day he died, forty years later, in spite of the doctors removing his nails three times to get rid of it. The scars on his body were large and horrifying. The nightmares haunted his sleep every single night of his life, since the day he came back. There are no words to adequately capture my anger and revulsion at the people who have made this change ... people who will never have to suffer the real consequences ... at least here on earth.
For Dan
Lizzy L asks, Gilbert and Sullivan, or Kafka?
How about Monty Python's Flying Circus? More specifically the sketch about Mister Neutron, the Most Dangerous Man in the Universe...
It occurs to me that the foe of that moment might indeed be following the US field manual, if back in the noughties it was a close ally that received military training and advice from the US.
... yes, that's my "stop the world and let me off" moment, right there. I can't think too hard about the future repercussions of this mess without threatening either my blood pressure or my lunch. Possibly both.
Caroline:
I would love to see it. Maybe they'll take up that gauntlet if TPTB at the network can be convinced it'll fly, ratings-wise.
like it or not, fear works
As long as a political leader can invoke the terror of some enemy, it will work to keep that politician in office as long as they provide the fear-based voter what he wants, fear-based violence.
The day someone can invoke a higher principle than might-makes-right, such as, say, justice for all, as opposed to "justice for us", then there's a chance that fear won't work anymore.
I keep imagining those who invoke fear as pushing the population down into their baser instincts, base emotions of fear and anger. And reacting with base emotions towards them isn't going to make it "not work" anymore. Tarring and feathering the fear-mongers isn't any better than the fear-mongers wanting to tar and feather some external enemy.
The only thing I know that pulls us out of our baser instincts is our values, our principles.And even then, it ain't easy. Which may be why it "works" so damn easy, and why getting a country out of "fear mode" is so hard...
Recall that the North Vietnamese excuse for torturing our troops was that since we were involved in an illegal war, our troops were unlawful combatants and the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to them.
It was a false argument then (there is no class of person not covered by the Geneva Conventions), and it's a false argument now.
How is everyone so sure that torture doesn't work? Seriously: I can't even take cold showers, so something hugely discomforting of undefined length would be terrifying to me.
You say the Spanish Inquisition: I think there's a difference between "Are you evil? What about...now?", and knowing for a fact that someone has information which poses an immediate threat on lives of innocent people and doing what needs to be done to extract it. Bear in mind, you're looking for specific information, not a vague confession.
Someone asked what the effect of such-and-such an event would be: I think the answer is obvious - peopl would spin the facts in their own mind to believe whatever it is they do already. This is what happens with everything, and why double-bling experiments are so necessary in any valid scientific studies.
(I don't support torture by the way, but I don't think the concept is quite as OMG EVILS! as some are making it out to be.)
This discussion reminds me of something I read some time back.
One interviewer of World War II POWs told me that German soldiers repeatedly told him that relatives with World War I combat experience had advised, "Be brave, join the infantry, and surrender to the first American you see." The American reputation for fair play and respect for human life had survived over generations, and the decent actions of American soldiers in World War I had saved the lives of many soldiers in World War II.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
On Killing, 1995
It seems to me that even someone completely lacking in empathy ought to be able to see that turning surrender into a bad option for your enemies will just convince them to fight harder and longer. This policy won't just affect prisoners in a hypothetical future war; it's going to kill American military personnel right now.
I'm really starting to wonder about Cheney. He's the one who keeps arguing for torture. Some of the others really think they should be using it to get information, but I'm wondering if he likes it.
The real effect that violating the Geneva Conventions has on our own troops isn't that someday some enemy will violate the Conventions right back at us. It is because torturing enemy combatants is demoralizing to our own men and it allows the worst elements in our military to thrive.
knowing for a fact that someone has information which poses an immediate threat on lives of innocent people
This is one of the major sticking points: outside of fiction, TV and major motion pictures, you never know this for a fact.
Also, "torture doesn't work" is actually short for "torture doesn't produce reliable information." You'll get something out of the subject eventually, sure, but the likelihood that it will be both useful and factual is somewhere down near nil.
...double-bling experiments....
Ahem. That should read double-blind experiments. I don't think university budgets would stretch quite that far
(I don't support torture by the way, but I don't think the concept is quite as OMG EVILS! as some are making it out to be.)
Before responding I'd encourage everyone to check K Hunt's "View All By". coff troll coff
How is everyone so sure that torture doesn't work? Seriously: I can't even take cold showers, so something hugely discomforting of undefined length would be terrifying to me.
It doesn't work, and we know this because it's been proven by the experimental method that, faced with pain or threat of pain, people make stuff up. There is no surer way to get someone to tell you what you want to hear, regardless of its truth. Even if the person knows the real answer, he won't remember it after he's constructed the story that's in your mind.
Many years ago, I was in SERE School. One of the parts of that was the Prisoner of War sequence. We were questioned (using methods that didn't result in permanent disability). Part of that was teaching us how to resist questioning. The other part was training the interrogators -- they'd been instructed to learn about a certain subject that their prisoners didn't know anything about. They got the information anyway, and constructed an elaborate and self-consistent story. It was all fantasy. This was teaching them the limits of harsh interrogation.
Torture didn't stop the spread of heresy, it didn't help the French hold Algeria, or the Nazis hold France. It didn't prolong the Soviet Union. It won't make us safe from terrorists.
Sarah S: "I don't know. I sort of think that the last thing we need is a visionary." Indeed! A recent New Yorker book review about The Terror in revolutionary France emphasizes the role of utopian/idealist agendas in the creation of havoc, both then and with the backward-looking "Romanticism" of Nazis set on ethnic cleansing. (Michael Moorcock shows the latter sort of thing in action, quite graphically, in his final Pyat book The Vengeance of Rome.)
So no visionaries with agendas, please!
K Hunt --
The evidence that torture doesn't work is extensive and distressingly modern.
The fundamental problem is that there are two ways to run an interrogation.
The first way is to ask "where did you put the bomb?".
This is the bad -- Sauron's least gentle nightmares, bad -- way to run an interrogation, because you're telling the person that you're interested in a bomb, and that they had better tell you something about a bomb.
If you torture them until they tell you something about a bomb, they'll keep making stuff up even if they know particular, relevant, specific facts until you stop.
That's the practical problem with torture; you have no magic truth detection spell, so you have no way to know when your victim has told you the truth. So you don't know when to stop; when you eventually do stop (which is not all that likely to be before the victim dies; if you're dumb enough to be conducting this sort of interrogation and torturing your victim, you're very likely to be using a false-to-fact internal narrative about what you're doing and how it works, so the events that would get you to stop are unlikely to happen.)
So, you've got a mangled corpse and a pile of (generally conflicting) confessions, originating with the corpse, which you then have to sort through. The facts might or might not be in there; you don't know -- though you may believe -- that the person you just tortured knew any.
So what you've really done is generated a larger, more difficult -- people trying to stop pain get inventive -- search space that isn't particularly likely to contain any facts.
The second way to run an interrogation is to sit down with the person you want to interrogate and give them the chance to prove to you that they're not helpless by telling you what amounts to a story proving that they're not.
That's two basic primate drives; it's very hard for the prisoner to avoid doing that, and the information you get is the information that they choose to volunteer, in the end, because it is, in their estimation, the coolest, most important stuff they know.
You find out stuff you didn't know and didn't suspect that way; you align the prisoner's fundamental motivation (proving that they aren't helpless) with your fundamental motivation (finding out what they know that they think is important), rather than making them drastically opposed (they want the pain to stop; you don't want to stop until you're sure they've told you everything they know about whatever you might be interested in), and, hey, you didn't destroy anybody in the process.
The people making torture US policy are incompetent, sadistic, and unaware of either failing.
Lisa --
All authoritarian rulers want to be feared. Torture, secret arrest, lists of enemies, these are all ways to generate fear.
...you never know this for a fact.
Not even if someone has the equivalent of "Senior Intelligence Liaison Officer" on their back? Or if you caught them in their workshop just having pushed a timed remote detonation switch? I know these are extreme (and ludicrous) examples but no-one's suggesting torture as a first resort.
Actually, I'm not envisioning this as a real world example at all, more of a scary thought experiment. What seems to be happening in what Jim describes is pretty jaw dropping, to say the least. But I think an understanding of exactly what torture is needs to be hammered out before we get into empty rhetoric from both sides. Otherwise you get stuck in the mentality that says child-rapists have no rights.(It makes sense to me, I swear).
turning surrender into a bad option for your enemies will just convince them to fight harder and longer.
Always leave your enemy an out. Never surround them completely.
an understanding of exactly what torture is
is something you need to hammer out. I don't think anyone here has any significant questions about torture. That you keep bringing it up as if it were unaswered either is a reflection of your standing or a red flag that you're a troll. Try wikipedia. You'll learn about it, and you may even experience it. Come back when you're done.
Whoa there Scott H. This in an interesting discussion to anyone concerned about human rights and I don't think that not having a history of comments is a stain on my character. There's no such thing as debate if everyone keeps reinforcing the same points. I seriously am not interested in provoking anything other than a sharing of ideas and clarifiaction of information on my own part. When I asked the question on how people know that torture doesn't work, I was actually asking a question. I don't, as a rule, wholly trust things people hold as self-evident and was making an honest requestfor information and sources.
a scary thought experiment
it's always easier to contrive scary thought experiments than to deal with the real world. I suggest dealing with the real world...
There's no such thing as debate if everyone keeps reinforcing the same points.
I wasn't aware there was a debate going on here.
You know what? I'm sorry. I think I've just been making something of a fool of myself here. As I said, Iwasn't trying to provoke argument, but I don't think that I really had that much to bring to the table in this discussion. I was at fault in a way here, and if everyone could just forget what I said, that'd be super.
(I really am being sincere here, although it's hard to get that across without sounding petty and sarcastic)
Your questions about torture are answered on wikipedia. Read it. all of it. come back when you're done.
Seriously. Educate yourself. Then come back.
Do that, and folks might not take you for a troll. Ignore that, and well, you've seen the reaction you've gotten thus far.
Let me have Ann Coulter for 24 hours, and let me have a free hand, and I'll have her confessing to both being a member of al Qaeda and giving blowjobs to Bill Clinton, with a great deal of circumstantial detail and the names of her accomplices.
It always starts out that torture will be the "last resort." Pretty soon it turns into the first resort. Then it turns into something that you just do for fun.
May I suggest that you Google on "torture warrants"? Read the links you find.
Try this one as a first stop: http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/print.html
Then go here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Torture/Torture_We_Trust.html
and here:
http://www.sundayherald.com/53162
Torture has been tried. It hasn't worked. Why should we expect any different results?
K Hunt --
You never know. Competent senior intelligence liaison officers switch jackets with a more-brave-than-sensible flunky before the HQ is overrun.
Scary thought experiments in the face of factual replies qualify as highly unhelpful; labeling factual replies as empty rhetoric would appear to go beyond unhelpful into actively mendacious.
The point is that even if we're talking about the minions of Ming the Merciless, who have absolutely no concern for civilization, morals, their own well being, or any amount of damage done to others, torture is still wrong because it does not work.
Jim's given you a recent, factual example based on a US military training processes detailing exactly why it doesn't work; why isn't that good enough?
K Hunt
Oh, gosh. Well, if you are a troll, you're the most polite one I can recall meeting. If you're not, I sincerely apologize for slandering you. It's just that your remark above:
"(I don't support torture by the way, but I don't think the concept is quite as OMG EVILS! as some are making it out to be.)"
struck me as a wee bit provocative. But let's assume for the sake for argument that you're for real. Could a get a couple of examples of things you think are more evil than torture?
OK, K Hunt has apologized. I personally would like to see everyone lay off him until/unless he says something foolish again.
That's not an order or anything. I'm not even really making it as a request. Just telling you what I think would be good.
Which of us has never put his or her foot in the corresponding mouth? I certainly have (read my early interactions with Jim if you want to see a relatively reasonable person (me) acting like a total jackass—but if you do please don't tell me you did). The grace to apologize when wrong is a rare virtue; let's not make it useless, hmmm?
This argument to practicality is one designed for wingnuts, the ones who think that Torture Works and is Manly and Cool.
Even if it did work, which we know it does not, torture would still be wrong because it coarsens the torturer, betrays our ideals, and hardens the resolve of our enemies.
K Hunt: Define works? I guarantee you I can get answer to questions out of anybody, just give me enough time and no restrictions on what I can do them.
What I can't get is reliable information.
I could (and probably shall) go into details about that, but (though it's only semi-fair) put [ "Terry Karney" torture ] into google and you will get a slew of my writing, and the arguments I've had with those who say torture "might" work, and so we ought to "keep it in the tool-box."
For bona-fides, I am, and have been for thirteen years, an Army Interrogator. I've taught the job, on and off, for the past 10+ years. I got to take a paid vacation (meals and lodging included) to the cradle of civilisation in early 2003, where I got to practice my craft in the real world.
Here are the facts.
Torture will get answers.
Those answers will be the answers the questioner wants.
A person who is ignorant of what the questioner wants to know will learn that the truth is not a path to less pain.
Said ignorant person will then lie.
Which will cloud the information stream.
The next subject will be tortured, looking for corroboration of the last person's story.
They will give such corroboration.
From there it gets ugly. The guy who isn't commiting torture will be criticised for not getting results (even though his are good information) and the guy who is getting crap will be getting pats on the head, and other such rewards. Which will reinforce both torture, and the belief that torture works (in part because those who aren't tortured won't know what story they have to tell to meet the template).
It doesn't work. What you get is bad info. The very few occaisions where it might work are so few, the means to be sure that only people who know are tortured, and the fact that other means work as well (or better) without the side-effects of degrading the person doing the interrogating make it not only counter-productive, but repugnant.
But that's just my two-cents. There are lots of people in the world who think I'm wrong. You can listen to them if you like.
Scott H, he just backed off everything he said earlier. Why continue to challenge him on them as if he were still standing by those positions? He said "I was wrong." Maybe he doesn't think there are any things more evil than torture any more.
Xopher: I think there are things more evil than torture, but not many, and not that my Gov't is planning to tell me are legal orders.
Xopher
Yeah, he did. I didn't mean that to come across as hostile. Did it sound hostile?
K Hunt
It was not my intention to be rude. I apolgize again.
HA! Okay, Terry:
What's more evil than torture? Seriously. I'm not being an asshole, I just can't think of anything.
It all starts with dehumanizing "the enemy."
With saying that "this enemy" is different from the enemy in the past. This enemy is evil, demonic, just a rabid animal. And you have to go and get 'em.
People used to believe that animals didn't really feel pain, and so treated animals in ways that now make us shudder. Dehumanizing the enemy accomplishes the same thing -- if you believe they aren't really human, well then, you can do just about any old thing you want to them.
I'm also reminded of those classic experiments-gone-wrong that we learned about in Introductory Psychology, as what NOT to do in a psychological study. There was the one where two groups were put into a fake prison. One group was the guards, the other the prisoners. The guards were given total authority over the prisoners, and within days they were mistreating the prisoners, who nearly rioted, and the experiment had to be called off. In the other, an authoritative person in a lab coat stood over the subject, who believed that a person behind a screen was the real subject, and he was supposed to deliver increasingly strong electrical shocks to make the "subject" learn something (the bogus "subject" wasn't really getting shocked, but was faking he part). The vast majority of people would proceed with the experiment, even when they heard the "subject" scream, and even when the dial on the shocking machine was set beyond the level marked "dangerous," so long as the authoritative person told them to do so. Only a small handful refused to proceed with the experiment.
So there's something hardwired in our brains that sets these torture events in motion, and it's social systems that help us rise above these base instincts. A pity that the current administration chooses not to rise, but to sink to the level of their reptilian brainstems.
Sometimes post come in before a person has finished typing a reply. As I type this the last reply above me is Xopher's 05:41 PM.
--------------
Anyway. The Ticking Bomb. The Slippery Slope. If it's okay to torture the guy who planted a bomb to find out where it is ... how about if you can't find him, but you have someone who knows where he is? How about someone who might know where he is? How about the wife of the cousin of the guy who might know where he is? That argument to necessity is infinitely expandable.
There are means of torture that don't break the skin (in fact, the Spanish Inquisition (mentioned above) was specifically forbidden to break the skin). I recall one, from the Dirty War in Argentina. In their endless drive to root out communists, or insurgents, or whatever it was they were looking for, more and more people were swept up. One method of torture was this: a parent would be put in a jail cell, and treated kindly; well fed, not physically abused in the slightest. Plenty of sleep, all the comforts of home. His or her child would be placed in a cell across the hall, close enough to talk, and would be allowed to starve to death in front of the parent's eyes. Unless the parent told the captors what they wanted to know, of course....
Not a lot of people stood up to that. People who knew nothing (and that was most of them, snatched up because someone else had named them in order to make the torture stop) would soon be naming accomplices and confessing to all manner of bizarre crimes. But not a mark on them that a medical examiner would be able to find.
Since they were confessed criminals, they could then be executed. Neat and clean. That's how torture works. That's what Bush and Cheney and Gonzales and Rumsfeld want Americans to do.
Torture one man, and you'll see thousands who identify with him sign up to fight you. Even if you get relevant information from that one man, it will soon be irrelevant as thousands of new recruits fight you.
The Boston Massacre involved the death of five civilians, for gods sake, but those five deaths were percieved as so wrong that it became a rallying cry against the British and even gained indirect mention in the Declaration of Independence. Wars start over this.
And if a "war" has already started, this sort of frightened stupidity will only throw a match in the magazine. I swear, the next f'ing moron who says "they hate us because of our freedom" is getting strapped to a waterboard and freedom-dunked. No one hates us because of our freedom, they hate us because we don't treat them as human. And right now, they're 100 percent right.
the current administration chooses not to rise, but to sink
In this case, I think they're actually pushing...
That's what Bush and Cheney and Gonzales and Rumsfeld want Americans to do.
Yes, precisely. They know the answers; they have the retaliation planned.
Intel which does not support their pre-determined position is by definition false.
Suggesting torture to find
Ticking bombs and enemy bases?
Let us bring to mind
The dangers of edge cases.
I just wanted to note that dehumanizing the enemy doesn't have to turn into an immediate rush to abandon all morality. The training propaganda Dad got in WW2 is heavy on the inhumanity and general monstrousness of the Nazis and Japs. It's also got a very strong emphasis on "So we're going to show them how real men fight a war for decent values." But then of course the Roosevelt administration wasn't led by cowardly bullies.
If it won't work on you, why the hell would it work on the other guy?
Why, because the other guy is clearly of an inferior race, probably even a girlie-man. To which one could say "how come then that a bunch of ragheads can still trouble thousands of well-trained America's finest boys, hiding behind all sort of state-of-the-art technological weaponry... for more than 3 years?" But I digress...
The point is, torture works internally: as a way to completely compromise who takes part in it (that will then be desperately bound to fight to justify his actions in a victorious end), and to scare the "home front" as pointed out earlier.
If I could get GWB on the phone now, I'd propose a nicer way to solve all this mess: the Europeans and South-Americans will leave the USA team free to win the FIFA World Cup, and you promise not to invade any country anymore and stop this torture nonsense. We know you do it just for envy, because you are shi*e at the most popular sport in the world, and you have to steam off your frustation. To willingly lose the World Cup is the ultimate sacrifice for us but hey, it would be worth it...
OK, so Fear leads to violence leads to torture and other inhumane actions against the percieved enemy. Inhumane treatment of the percieved enemy acts as a recruiting poster for the enemy's cause. If they didn't hate us before, they hate us now. This feeds on itself until it spirals completely out of control.
So, how to break the loop?
First idea, anyone who advocates inhumane treatment of anyone should be called a coward loud and clear, because they're acting out of fear. Courage isn't false bravado, beating of chests, proving how tough you are, and proving that you're willing to do anything to the enemy. That's simply covering up the fear that runs them. If nothing else, maybe calling them a "cowared" might snap them out of it. I don't think empathy will. At least not at first. But anyone who sacrifices all of their principles out of fear is a coward. If that gets their attention, then maybe you can try some empathy. If not, they might not convert anyway...
Second, the word "terrorism" is complete self-fullfilling-prophecy. It isn't terrorism is you're not succumbing to terror. It isn't terrorism if you're not so gripped by fear that you can't think rationally. Any good one-word terms that could replace "terrorism"? Ideally, they wouldn't involve any root words such as "terror" or "fear" or the like. It is terrorism if you think they can wipe out the whole existence of the United States. They can't. But if you believe they can and succumb to that fear, then you're no good for finding a solution. Given that clear-headed thinking is needed to deal with this sort of BS, a word that doesn't invoke the sort of non-clear-headed thinking might be helpful.
Think of it as the "I will not succumb to fear" campaign. And part of it is by renaming "terrorism" to something not fear based.
If terrorism is a coward's term, what would a courageous person call it?
Terry wrote:
Auschwitz
Yes, Auschwitz was very evil, and no mistake. But isn't saying that "Auschwitz is more evil than torture" kind of like saying "murder is more evil than homicide?"
Don't bother to reply. This time I'm just being an asshole.
Imagining that torture works as advertised on television for a moment:
If the only case we're interested in is the Ticking Atom Bomb of Doom, wouldn't a real movie hero torture the bad guy and save the city even though it's illegal, throw his badge at his boss afterwards and take his chances in court?
Dirty Harry did that just to try and save one girl, shouldn't a real tough guy do as much to save a city?
If we're only worried about the edge cases, we don't need legal torture. Legal torture is for routine use only.
Jim, you wrote the post I would have tried to write, and you even used an example I was thinking of, only, God forgive us, I didn't know it had actually been used in Argentina...
We aren't having a debate. I don't think one can debate this. Torture is wrong; using it turns you into a monster. And to those who pose the inevitable hypothetical -- What if by using torture you could save the person you love most in the world certain pain, or death... to them I say; I pray I would have the strength to resist temptation, and whether or not I have that strength, torture is still wrong.
Greg --
Fear leads to stupid.
Stupid throws you back on your reflexes and your training.
Authoritarian corporate structures create reflexes, and provide training, in being cowardly and vindictive, because this is more effective than being courageous and magnanimous.
The unfortunate individuals responsible for this pattern of mandated atrocity really believe management by attrocity is effective, because it matches their experience, and they're generalizing -- badly, way too far -- from their experience.
They then develop a burning, petulant fury at reality for failing to conform to their expectations.
The fix is more obvious, real stuff in all aspects of education, corporate life, and public life; a general ban on advertising (a machine for creating, if not fear, general insecurity); and the creation of mechanisms of general accountability in corporations. (The organic drive for which explains much about the expansion of HR departments over the last 30 years or so.)
Comments on Torture: It's the New Black: