Tainted by Torture, Pt. XIX
[Phillip Carter,
Thursday March 15, 2007 at 9:30am ]
Adam Liptak reports in today's New York Times on the statements made by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to his Combatant Status Review Tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Among other things, Mohammed told his interrogators that "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." With respect to his testimony and the tribunal generally, Mohammed said "To be or accept the tribunal as to be, I’ll accept it,” he said. “That I’m accepting American Constitution, American law or whatever you are doing here. That is why religiously I cannot accept anything you do."The CSRT is not a criminal court; its standards of evidence are far different from what a federal district court or court-martial would allow. The summary nature of these proceedings is not the problem; the same would be true of an Art. 5 tribunal under the 3rd Geneva Convention. Nonetheless, it's disturbing to many that the body would consider these statements, which many consider to have been procured via coercive interrogation practices. Moreover, as I wrote in "Tainted by Torture" in May 2004, there are concerns that Mohammed's interrogation was tainted by these practices, such that his statements, any evidence derived from his statements, and any defendants whose trials grow out of this evidence, may be tainted as well. My main concern then was not the use of these practices per se, but the damage they might do to American strategic interests in the long run:
As a nation, we still haven't clearly decided whether it's better to prosecute terrorists or pound them with artillery. But by torturing some of al-Qaida's leaders, we have completely undermined any efforts to do the former and irreversibly committed ourselves to a martial plan of justice. In the long run, this may be counterproductive, and it will show that we have compromised such liberal, democratic ideals like adherence to the rule of law to counter terrorism. Torture and tribunals do not help America show that it believes in the rule of law. But if CIA officials continue to use tactics that will get evidence thrown out of federal court, there will increasingly be no other option.See also: Colleague Noah Shachtman has a good rundown of KSM news and links at his Wired magazine blog Danger Room.
See also: UC Davis law professor Diane Amann has an interesting post on the intersection between this story and the "state secrets" doctrine at the new weblog "International Law Grrls".
0 Trackbacks /
Is it not just as likely that the best interrogators in the US arsenal are equally capable of elliciting informaion through other, more indirect approaches such as "Ego up or down". (page 8-12, 8-13 of the unclass FM 2-22.3, it can be googled) This approach would likely work outstanding on someone like KSM, and all of the statements I read sound like someone who is boasting and stroking his own ego.
My, my, what a confusing world.
Show trials without due process prove nothing except that the nation conducting said trial has lost its way. Is Mohammed a "bad guy?" Certainly it appears so. I believe he is what he is charged to be - a senior Al Queda leader who planned attacks on the United States.
So why not give him an honest and fair trial instead of a show trial?
It is confusing, partly because there are so many uninformed pundits out there who confuse the situation by talking of out their assess. Most who are professional interrogators (military and civilian) will agree that torture is NOT effective in getting reliable information. An argument can be made that torture along with "shock of capture" can result in very quick, actionable intel in some cases, but for more detailed, more reliable statements, other methods are always preferred. The catch is that most of those approaches are very slow, and we are impatient people.
JD, I too agree a fair and honest trial is a good idea. What would be the harm if you think you have a water tight case? I really don't understand the legal implications of trying these people. Is there a fear that putting KSM on trial on TV would start riots and anti-US demonstrations? Don't we already have that?
"So why not give him an honest and fair trial instead of a show trial?"
Why not, indeed?
Secondly, I read the transcript and what KSM stated did not appear coerced to me. His personal representative read a statement where he confessed all that stuff and he was asked multiple times whether he was coerced into giving it and if it was true. He consistently said he wasn't coerced to make that statement and that it was true.
He then give a verbal statement and his basic argument is that yes, he did all those things and he did them because he is at war with America and Israel. He argues in a round-a-bout way that he should not be found an unlawful combatant because he is a warrior and has been conducting war. It's pretty obvious that his view of what war is is fundamentally different from what most of call it.
If anything in his confession is not true, I think it's more likely that it's due to his bragging than to "torture" or coercion. It's pretty clear that he wasn't being coerced in the Tribunal and he makes no claim of mistreatment at GITMO.
And in any case, this status hearing is a violation of the Geneva Conventions in and of themselves. When a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions determines combatant status it must follow the same procedures it uses when dealing with its own troops - and we use a court-martial system with full legal safeguards and full due process.
We didn't have a hearing for all German soldiers we captured in WWII, for instance. Their status, however, was not in doubt and we treated them as EPWs with full rights under the Geneva Convention. If we declared Mohammed was an EPW we could hold him until the conclusion of "hostilities," whenever that would be, if ever. But before we "punish" him for "crimes," we have to have a trial - a real, honest-to-goodness, fair trial.
And the calls of "oh, but he is a terrorist and doesn't deserve it" seem to forget that we gave a full and honest and fair and complete trial to fucking Hermann Goering, and you can't tell me this clown is any more evil than that Nazi son-of-a-bitch. He helped murder six million Jews, 12 million people total, in extermination camps, and he started a war that cost the lives of tens of millions more. And we gave him a fair and full and honest trial (and then would have killed him but he swallowed poison first to cheat the hangman). We did so the damn Nazis, but we can't for this bastard? WTF? Why the hell not? Kill millions of innocents, murder hundreds of thousands of children, and you get a fair trial, but hijack some planes and kill 3,000 people, and we can't bother to do so because you are too dangerous? Bullshit. There is absolutely no viable reason we can not try this man honestly and fairly and will all due process, and then execute him. The only reason not to do so is because we do not trust our justice system - and that is a much bigger problem than any posed by asshole terrorists trying to kill us.
Why not a fair trial? Because the rule of law is a nice, "quaint," obsolete concept for this administration.
When will our national shame stop? We have done so much more to hurt ourselves than the terrorists could ever do.
The CSRTs are a sham procedure which was cooked up by DoD, DOJ, and OVP in the aftermath of the Supreme Court 2004 decisions in Hamdi and Rasul. They purport to be Geneva III art. 5 hearings, but in fact are nothing but a rubber stamp for administrative decisions made without regard to legal due process or treaty requirements.
There isn't any conclusive evidence of torture asyet, but there's enough anectdotal and circumstantial evidence to bring a criminal indictment against Bush, Cheney and the entire chain of command down to the CIA interogators right now if we only had a an honest prosecutor and a grand jury to do it. Unfortunately DOJ, like DoD, is now a criminal organization whose primary purpose is to aid, abet, and commit crimes; enforcing the law is only something they do to their "enemies," real or imagined.
I don't think KSM and the other "high value" guys have actually been charged for a "military commission" yet, and my assumption is that they won't be until such time as the
Supreme Court says they are legal, which hopefully won't ever happen, because they are plainly illegal. It would be virtually impossible to try them in a real court after the way they've been handled, and even if that wasn't true, the administration doesn't want them to have the opportunity to tell their stories in public.
KSM has a wife and two sons who were taken when he was. We have no idea wheere they are other than in CIA custody /control somewhere. There are credible rpeorts that one of the things that KSM was tortured with was a threat to harm his children.
The reality is that these people should hgave been arrested and indicted as criminals from day one. They weren't becasue of the administration's hyper-paranoid / neo-fascist / idiotic world view, and as with everything else these people do, for the sake of crass political manipulation.
Yes, we are assuming that KSM was "tortured," as I understand that term's definition under the Convention Against Torture. He was reportedly subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation/management, sensory deprivation, and a variety of other techniques. Individually and cumulatively, these techniques are considered by most (but not all) experts to cross the line established by the CAT.
(For more, see "What is torture?" at: http://www.slate.com/id/2119122/)
My sense is that KSM's brain has been turned into mush by these practices, and the last three years of captivity. It's entirely possible that he did these things; there is reportedly physical and documentary evidence of these facts. But I would not give any credibility to anything he says, given what he's been subjected to.
It's not yet clear whether KSM will ever be tried by a military commission or other tribunal. I would like to see that take place someday. It's important that we delegitimize these men as soldiers and warriors through a legal process which brands them as criminals and brigands. However, it's also important that such legal process be considered fair, so that its outcome is deemed just and legitimate.
Second, as always question the most obvious assumptions. Especially in this instance since the object is propaganda, not truth or justice. Consider for instance - do you really trust these guys, and, do they have anything to hide?
For instance, why not visit a bit of the history behind KSM, such as the original reports that he had been killed in a Karachi shoot out, that his wife and kids id'd said body, that a new, or was it really the old? KSM turned up in some ISI safe house in Rawalpindi. . . and was dutifully turned over to Pakistan's great ally in the War on Terror, the CIA. . . ? What are loyal allies for anyway?
Consider this . . . and this. . .
confession item 7(c) Plaza Bank Washington State
looks as if Plaza Bank was not created until 2006
Plaza site
The problem with overturning the rule of law, as your admin has done, is that nobody subsequently believes anything you say. Since you have reinstituted the gulag-system of indefinite incarceration as an official part of US system of justice, nobody in the universe sees the US as a moral force anymore. That may be the greatest legacy that the Bush-admin leaves behind: The death of the American dream.
Torture or no, my response to this confession was: "What the hell did he have to lose?" He must know by now that he's going to be in stir for the rest of his natural life, he's got nothing to lose by confessing to everything and anything he can think of. For one thing, he might very well know that his confession could help some of his comrades escape, by muddying the water re: who was involved in various escapades.
This just reminds me of the hash that this administration has made of much of their "War on Terror" and the general uselessness of this sort of torture and barbarism in general. IT is worse than a crime. It is a mistake.
The right wing says that these show-trials are no worse than the trials in China, wich is true, and about sets the level of the discourse now: Youre comparing your levels of justice with a factual military state. We see the same thing in our neighbour country, Denmark, wich is fanatically pro-Bush: A willingness to break away from the concept of the law as absolute arbiter, and more as a tool of convenience/power. (We had hardcore policeviolence in Copenhagen last week..).
The same is seen with the prosecutor-case, and the mad mad state of Mr. Gonzales. Honesty is not rewarded. Its a trend I see all across the board, and indicates that something is rotten at the core of the system. These are, in my eyes, serious problems you are creating for yourself and your republic, and by consequence, the world.
That's what they always tell us, but it's a good idea to keep an eye on them.
From the beginning, the field level commander always strived to treat anyone detained on the battlefield as an EPW, so why not continue that long tradition? It seems that it would make everything else so easy, even if other nations wouldn't treat similar sorts of people as anything like that.
Anyone captured by us in the GWoT should receive default EPW status.
News brought to us all by the PRC.
:)
Torture or no, my response to this confession was: "What the hell did he have to lose?"
Book/movie deals?
Also, I reiterate my request for insight from this site on the current US Attorneys affair. Especially in re is it time to revamp how these people are installed?
Please?
.
The problem with overturning the rule of law, as your admin has done, is that nobody subsequently believes anything you say. Since you have reinstituted the gulag-system of indefinite incarceration as an official part of US system of justice, nobody in the universe sees the US as a moral force anymore. That may be the greatest legacy that the Bush-admin leaves behind: The death of the American dream.
Clearly, the people in charge viewed a "confession" as extremely important. Probably for purposes of some kind of show trial designed to demonstrate to the American people that our ever-vigilant authorities are on the case. Those evil-doers will be punished for their deeds. This puts me in mind of a hallmark of the old KGB and Gestapo—in fact, any police/intelligence/security agency of a totalitarian regime: the confession is viewed as all-important as a means of legitimizing the state's activities and assuring the public that the regime is ever-watchful. Ccnfession, show trial, then off to the Gulag or the hangman. The accused even gets legal representation. What's not to like?
The USSR and its satellites, as well as Nazi Germany, always had the "rule of law." They took pains to write citizens' rights into governing documents. That the state "interpreted" those rights for the good of the many rather than the few—as they took pains to point out—does nothing to change the fact that the "protections" were there. Same in China, North Korea and Vietnam today. Interesting company we're keeping these days.
"That may be the greatest legacy that the Bush-admin leaves behind: The death of the American dream."
You do have a way with words, JD.
until then he deserves a chance to make bail and the right to remain silent. I will be leading a march of Americans who agree with me tomorrow,starting at the Washington Monument at 11am sharp.
An interesting question. What if KSM was tried and found innocent? Of course that can't happen with the military tribunals, can it?
Franklin Drackman, you're a funny guy. Maybe it'll tickle your funny bone even more when/if you ever realize that no one here gives a rat's ass about KSM. It's for YOU, funny guy.
But great minds think alike, my friend. That quote stood out to me just like it did for you.
I have a perverse sense of pride over the terrible events of the last six years. Here is why: I was a very good student of history in college, and when I was reading letters and diaries by slaveholders in the American South I wondered if I would have had the courage to do the right thing back then. When doing a history term paper entitled "the Legalization of the Holocaust" I read diaries and letters and contemporary newspaper accounts - both US and German - and again wondered the same thing - what would I do if I were in that situation? It is easy to condemn somebody if you have never walked a mile in their shoes and know you never will. I wondered if I would have been fooled too, or worse, if I would have joined in the evil. I learned from my studies that most people joined in, and the others just tried to stay out of harm's way. Few stood against the fascists, and those that did were beaten down.
Now I know what I would do.
Our nation was wrongfully and viciously attacked on 9/11 by a small group of evil men bent on destruction and mayhem. Our response could have been yet another example of why self-government is best for mankind. We could have shown the world why we had such a fearsome but wonderful reputation. After WWII and then the long Cold War, we seemed to have come through better than before. 9/11 occurred and the entire planet sent us condolences and wishes of good will and support. Flowers piled up outside US embassies. The world trusted us to do the right thing. We were the sole superpower not only due to our economic and military might, but because the rest of the world was ok with our dominance. We were, usually, the "good guys." We were respected and admired and incredibly powerful and incredibly trusted. We were proud of ourselves and our grand experiment in self-government.
We were wrong. We are only human, and our craven response to 9/11 - terror - was just what the evil men who attacked us were hoping for. We began to take "shortcuts," little things, small deviations. We did the easy wrong instead of the hard right.
And then it got worse and worse, until now we find ourselves truly on the cusp of a fascist takeover. Our national reputation is tattered, destroyed by an administration that views the rest of humanity as objects instead of people, and who are so consumed with self-righteous hubris that they loathe the United Nations of all things - the very body WE set up after WWII, the very body that we created in order to avoid pre-emptive warfare and imperialism.
After two hard struggles against totalitarianism - WWII and the Cold War - our leader the "commander in chief" decided that totalitarianism is best. There were even burnings of CDs by a country music band, the Dixie Chicks, for simply saying they were ashamed of the president. We began rounding up immigrants, both legal and illegal, without any legal representation or right of appeal. They just disappeared. When discussed, the answer was that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact." There was no outrage over statements like that, statements that reveal an enemy in our midst - or at the highest levels of our own government. Then we began to focus on illegal immigrants, and still do. We have at least one US citizen arrested inside the US that was put in military custody and not given access to an attorney and not charged with any crime, held in solitary confinement in a military brig (stockade) for years, and no outcry was raised (Padilla). Then the NSA warrantless wiretaps, the filth and Zell Miller-style xenophobic false patriotism on display during the election of 2004, and we continue to learn of scandal upon scandal. How dare anyone pretend to be "shocked" at what we learn now? It was clear from the first time we left the straight and narrow path and began our walk toward darkness that we would get there - we would reach the darkness.
So why am I proud?
Because I faced the same fear and uncertainty and anger that everybody else faced, was exposed to the same propaganda and lies that everyone else heard, and I took a stand against it from the start. I know that if we turn fascist I will be arrested and probably killed as an "enemy of the state." I knew that. I know that. But I lived up to my oath, and I remain a patriot. I am not loyal to the "state" but to the American Revolution - as expressed in the Constitution. If the state turns against the Constitution then yes, it is my enemy.
I can now feel confident I am not a "sunshine patriot" and would have stayed in the snows of Valley Forge and with Gen. Washington until the final victory. I did the right thing. So did most of you. We can be proud of that. We are right to be proud.
But the threat remains, and it is not growing weaker. Study fascist takeovers and you will see a pattern. The Nazis, for instance, lost seats in the elections of 1932, and yet in 1933 Hitler took over anyway - he took over a constitutional democratic republic. The threat of fascism - call it right-wing "conservatism" if you want, it is fascism pure and simple - is strong and dangerous today. We may not beat it back. The Republic may fail. But I did the right thing, and I will not stand idly by as my neighbors are rounded up, I will not stand idly by while the Constitution is subverted and twisted and ultimately abandoned. I will keep my oath.
Before anybody thinks I have again gone off the deep end, I remind you that there are hundreds of people who are not our enemies - or didn't used to be - that have languished in our own shameful gulag, Guantanamo Bay, for years. There are rumors that we have children incarcerated. There are rumors we have arrested the family members of our enemies. We now have acknowledgment of secret CIA prisons overseas, and of course we have "extraordinary rendition." Any time "code words" are used, like "extraordinary rendition" or "terrorist surveillance program" or "special treatment" or "harsh interrogation" or "final solution," then you always, always, always have a serious problem: an evil act is being committed by a government that wants to hide what it is doing - but doesn't have to hide it all that much because people simply do not want to know. That is when newspeak words appear, like WMDs or global war on terror or "resettlement in the East."
I once saw a full-bird infantry colonel go off in anger on a firing range in Korea when he heard the term "service targets." "That's Air Force Bullshit!" he shouted. "We don't service targets, we kill people and blow shit up. You need to be honest about it, we kill people. Don't make it easy or sound pretty, it is ugly and evil. We don't service fucking targets, we fucking kill people. Say 'target destroyed' not "serviced." Everybody was shocked. At the time I wondered what his problem was. Now I know. He was right. We don't service targets, we kill. And it isn't "harsh interrogation" it is torture. If you can't say what it is you are doing then you should not be doing it. I was a rifleman, and riflemen kill people. I am not ashamed of that, I served honorably. But I did not service targets. I shot to kill.
The title of this post by Phil Carter is "Tainted by Torture." That is what the Republic is - tainted. I have not gone crazy on some nut-bag conspiracy theory, I am listing facts. Reality. Our government has done evil and immoral acts in our name, has subverted the Constitution, has spied on us in violation of the Bill of Rights, and has lied to us repeatedly and shamelessly - and those that committed those crimes remain in office today. It appears there is little hope of removing them. They are our leaders by our own choice. I can't say I am proud of that. I am ashamed.
If you think "they" are "out to get you," you are either paranoid, right, or both. They are out to get you, and me, but they are starting with others first.
You can be sure of one thing - I won't help them. They are my enemy. Are they yours?
What are you doing to save the Republic? The only thing required for evil - such as fascism - to succeed is for good men to stand my and do nothing. Are you doing something?
Tainted.
I would like to bring up the Plame case in this discussion since I think it very relevant. Those that would so grievously impare our intelligence gathering capabilities must be highly suspect when they without regard for the consequences repeal our prohibition against the use of torture in intelligence interrogation. . . Trust is something that is earned, and also lost, and trust in this administration in their false promises and double-think attitudes is highly suspect, especially in regards to methods that not only can be used for intelligence gathering, but also for domestic repression. . . we should proceed with extreme caution imo.
I refer of course to my comments on the Kiley thread and the seriousness of the compromised operation around Agent Plame. Valeria Plame testified under oath before Congress today. . .
Why do we trust this gang of rouges that outed Agent Plame when they assure us that torture is necessary for intelligence collection purposes? The same people who intentionally destroyed a valuable covert collection apparatus with little regard for the consequences? Already I read on googlenews where Agent Plame's testimony provided "nothing new". Really? Has this scandal been investigated to the limit it deserves considering that it involved the collection of foreign aquisition of nuclear weapons, and this administration purposely destroyed the operation doing it? Is that really, "nothing new"? Or is it, that it is something that we would rather not consider, going through the motions that we are actually engaged in a "War on Terror" as we are instructed, and that our government acts in the national interest, when the opposite is obviously the case. . .
I totally don't understand your remarks. It seems that everyone here wants to fellate old KSM for all the trouble he's been put through. But then, you're the
expert in Rats anuses. Chow,
Our government has become a lot like Pete Rose, it tells us whatever it wants us to believe at this moment. Any relationship to the truth is coincidence.
I think you are misreading that. The question is what is the greater danger to our security, a government that fails to follow the law or some guy fantasizing plots in a distant land who got lucky when one actually worked. I think a lot of people fear the latter more, when the former is more dangerous, even if less evil.
Yes, and everyone, for one day, was a New Yorker. So what? The sentiment is easy because it's so freely given. Just as W expects no sacrifice on the part of Americans beyond an uptick in their shopping habits, neither does "the world" that expressed "condolences" wish to do more than that.
And, militarily, they can't anyway. Aside from the UK, they spent their peace dividend and, therefore, believe they bought peace.
All the gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts heard round the world when America decided that it wasn't enough to wallow in their day of sympathy but to crush the Talibi and spear al Qaeda where they skulked. Ha.
To our NATO allies in Afghanistan we should give many thanks. But to their constituents who bemoan our warmaking there and continue to put handcuffs on their troops so that they don't actually fight?
What thanks are they to receive? None from me, thank you very much.
The stench of torture is abominable. GITMO should be closed permanently. Every detainee should have become an EPW, subject to Red Cross/Crescent oversight, but also prevented from rejoining the fight, for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is many things, but a friendly non-combatant he is not.
If anyone in the world would so conspire to end the "American dream" (or, about 3,000 of them in one morning) it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Don't torture him because to do so makes us a savage below even him. It destroys our honor as soldiers and democrats.
But also don't let him out.
Well, Franklin, if you don't like the blow jobs around here, I'm sure you can find some other sites that give head just the way you like.
"Don't torture him because to do so makes us a savage below even him. It destroys our honor as soldiers and democrats.
"But also don't let him out."
What about such niceties as a trial, MSR? A real trial, not a "tribunal." You know, evidence and all that. Or would you have it more like, "let's bring the guilty bastard in, try him and then hang him?"
You might want to rethink that one since I agree with you MSR.
Buy here ... did I miss something. Wasn't it after Iraq that the world started to really go south on support for our adventures. It seems to me that Afghanistan was largely accepted until we made it clear that the rest of the world's opinion really didn't matter when we invaded Iraq. After that that they saw themselves less as partners, and more as subjects.
I want to touch on those two points. First, Franc's is a common and ordinary reaction. It is easy to jump on him and berate him, but try and see it from his point of view: why do you care what happens to this bad and evil man?
Why indeed? I do not care what happens to him, Franc. I don't like him. If I were his hangman, I would gladly pull the rope. This must be understood.
Then why, Franc might wonder, do so many "worry" about what happened to this evil man?
Franc, it is not this man we are worried about. It is the process we use. We have the death penalty in this nation. If he receives a fair trial, is convicted, and sentenced to death, I would have no problem in carrying out that sentence. But I am worried about the process we use. The PROCESS is the important part. Not to protect or defend this bad person, but to protect and defend you, Franc, and me, and every other person. When our forefathers founded this Republic they declared that all men have certain inalienable rights. The word "inalienable" means absolute, immutable, not able to be forfeited, undeniable. Those rights were the very reason given for our Revolution. In order to preserve those rights and defend against tyranny, our forefathers set up a government where the People would be in charge, but also where rights for all, especially despised minorities or individuals, would be protected.
Those rights can be taken away, though. That is a very dangerous thing, to take away rights that are undeniable. But we can and do take them away from people. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our government has the power to take away life, to take away liberty, and to take away property and to deprive a man of happiness. You can see the conflict - a revolution fought to preserve rights, but a government that can take away those rights in order to preserve order and defend the rights of others. This bad man, if he is guilty (and it appears he is), has deprived others of their right to life, and we have the right to punish him. But how do we ensure that this new, radical, revolutionary form of government doesn't end up trampling everybody, like the British monarchy did in the 1700s? We make the government use what we call "due process" - a short and simple way of saying "follow the rules issued to you by the people" and we put the ultimate authority in the hands of a jury composed of the people. The government has no authority to do anything, all authority comes from the people, and the people laid out in some detail the rules the government must follow.
Franc, when due process is not followed, when a government ignores the rules laid out for it, it ceases to be a servant of the people and instead becomes a threat. Not to the evil men that would be punished anyway, but to you, and me, and all freedom-loving citizens of this self-governing republic. If the cops are corrupt, whom do you turn to for protection? How much worse is it, then, if the government itself is corrupt?
Franc, you might not believe me. You might think it silly to worry about "rights" in such an obvious case. If "everybody" knows he is guilty, why worry if he is not given the same rights as you or I?
Franc, all I can say is that when a government takes power that does not belong to it, it keeps it unless it is taken away by the boss - the people. That is always the case. In WWII we fought fascism directly, and afterwards we had in our custody - military custody - some of the most evil and depraved and despised men in all of human history. What did the Greatest Generation do with them, Franc? Did they torture them, or put them away in a gulag without trial, or do any of the other things the Bush Administration has done? No. The Greatest Generation went to great lengths to ensure an open, fair, and full trial was provided to these evil men. Not because they wanted to fellate Hermann Goering, Franc. Not because the men who had just defeated the Third Reich, rolled the Wehrmacht, vanquished the Waffen SS, were soft. Not because they were weak or namby-pamby bleeding hearts. Because after facing the evils of fascism they understood, as you apparently do not (yet), that the only way to preserve their own freedom and the survival of our Republic was to ensure the rules apply to everybody, everywhere, even those whom we despise. The only way to defend my freedom, Franc, is to defend yours. The only way to protect from tyranny is to ensure the government is watched, carefully, by the people, and when the beast that is government - a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless - when that beast strays, we yank that chain and yank it hard and choke that beast to the ground. The People are in charge - until they are not. When that happens, when the government no longer is required to obey the laws issues by the people, then all the talk of freedom, liberty, truth, justice, and the American Way are all null and void. Liberty will no longer exist.
Do you hate this evil man so much that you would betray the Revolution, Franc? What is more important, punishing him or defending our liberty? Can't we do both?
Franc, the Nuremburg Tribunal was a wonderful statement of American principles. We, the Americans, stood for the rule of law and for justice. We were truly the good guys. We have a right to be proud of how our ancestors fought for and stood by justice, even in the face of those who committed genocide and who sought to - and unlike Al Queda, could have succeed in - enslaving and debasing the entire world. When faced with pure and unalloyed evil like the senior leadership of Nazi Germany, when faced with overwhelming evidence of millions of people, families, babies, children, all innocents, being murdered in industrial extermination camps, when faced with men who put the entire European rail network to use so that they could efficiently murder 12 million people AND these same men deliberately set out to and did start the worst, most destructive and bloody war the human race has ever seen or even imagined, what did our nation do? What did that Greatest Generation do? They ensured a fair trial for all the accused. They insisted that it was very important to do so.
Why, Franc? Why did they do that? When you realize why those who saved you from fascist slavery and murder, who risked all in a winner-take-all contest for world domination, thought it important to follow the rules, perhaps you will realize how terrible it is that we have show trials and torture and no respect for the rule of law or of the rights of man - all men. And what is our excuse? Oh, they want to hurt us. Well, they do. That excuse would not convince the men who faced the Nazi regime and the Empire of Japan, and it does not convince me. It should not convince you either, especially if you are what you claim to be, a patriot.
As for the "don't torture him... but don't let him out" comment, one has nothing to do with the other. If we have a system that will not work, after over 230 years of self-government, if we still have a system we can not rely upon in time of crisis, then self-government is a failure. Do you believe that, Franc? Do you think the system created by our Founding Fathers, and modified by each succeeding generation of free people, is unreliable and should not be trusted with our freedom, or our survival? If so, fine, I can respect that, but don't call yourself a patriot, you are a self-admitted enemy of the Constitution I swore to respect. If so, though, if you believe in America and in our way of life and in our form of government, then you should rely upon it especially in time of crisis. Don't let him out? If he has committed no crime we should not keep him, he is an innocent man. You don't believe he is innocent? Then you should trust the system that I pledged my life to, and that many have given that last full measure of devotion to protect.
Torture and Gitmo and kicking in doors and using the NSA to spy on "terrorists" inside our nation without a warrant and an all-powerful leader who kicks ass and does "whatever is required to protect the American People" sound like the toughest, strongest, and best way to defeat our enemies, right Franc? After all, why "fellate" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and worry about his attorney and right to remain silent when he knows what will kill innocents? Why defend his rights when he isn't even an American but openly admits he wants to destroy us? Why does the damn ACLU keep trying to destroy American, don't they understand Bush is doing all this to protect us?
Those same "weak versus strong" arguments were made before, Franc. The idea that it was weak to protect those weaker than yourself, or that it was weak to worry about the rights of your enemies, all those arguments were made before. It was clear and logical that the system that allowed the most extreme measures against enemies - such as torture and pre-emptive warfare - would triumph over systems where people didn't even agree on what should be done, where instead of total agreement there was dissent and disagreement and even enemies were treated as if they were human beings with immutable, inalienable rights. Of course the "kick ass and take names" system is better than that weak "rights-based" system, right, Franc? That is the argument Hitler and Franco and Mussolini and Tojo made about the Western Democracies and particularly the United States. The US form of government could just not compete against a united and strong, efficient, powerful fascist state that would stop at nothing to achieve victory, right?
Of course Hitler turned out to be wrong. The US way is inefficient, cumbersome, and sometimes maddeningly frustrating. But self-government showed its hidden strength, and fascism was defeated - for a time. Freedom trumped fascism. Independent and self-governing free men united for a cause and defeated a nation-state united behind an all-powerful leader.
And those free men thought it exceedingly important for them and for their posterity - for you and for me - to give the fascists who committed unspeakable and unprecedented evil acts a full and fair and open trial with all rights that defendants should be entitled to under the law.
Which side are you on, Franc?
As for the inevitable "troll" comments, I notice that when I watch excerpts from Fox News, such as on the Daily Show with John Stewart, most of my friends laugh and roll their eyes and figure "oh, those silly fools." Stop it. take them seriously. I mean it. STOP. Nobody took the Nazis seriously either, with their silly uniforms and outrageous goals and radical, obviously flawed ideas. People laughed at their antics for being so ignorant - until the laughter stopped and the murder began.
Franc and Zell Miller and Rumsfeld and any other extreme case you can think of, such as Karl Rove - you should take these people very seriously indeed.
The short answer to your question is that Cheney thinks the Geneva Conventions are for sissys, and doesn't believe in allowing the law to stand in the way of doing whatever he wants to do. Law is just another "tool" to be used as a weapon against ones "enemies" -- the administration is above the law. That is the mentality of these people.
As for the actual law, someone either is or isn't protected as a POW under Geneva III, and if not, then they are protected as a civilian under Geneva IV. Special arrangements are permissible, but may not be less favorable to the protected person than Geneva. No protected person may waive protection, and they are protected until the conclusion of hostilities, including the repatriation of all prisoners and detainees.
Geneva is not optional; it either applies or it doesn't. There are some gray areas around the edges, but the present situation is completely out of bounds.
To pile on the original topic - KSM probably did SOMETHING related to 9/11. Given all the published (and admitted) reports of torture techniques applied to various detainees, a "confession" presented by US authorities has no credibility.
As a US Citizen, I am utterly ashamed to have to make that last statement.
You have mde some incredibly powerful statements here, and all are backed by fact rather than wishful thinking.
I hope you get them published in the damn MSR.
Salut!
The whole image of the US as it projects itself on the world is one of fairness, democracy and the rule of law. To cut, as the Bush admin had dont, all these principles seemingly for nothing but petty revenge and lust for pain has effectively killed your soft power possibilities. Before, everyone dreamed about america. today, everybody talks about you like the psychotic ex-marine uncle you dont dare NOT invite to the family reunions.
We all expect Darth Vader to be cruel and evil. We all get surprised when the self-proclaimed Luke Skywalkers suddenly turn to the dark side. Its as simple as that.
Now that you have come out of the closet you should let these infidels know that your true name is Sulaiman; and was given to you by bin Laden himself for your great wisdom and your wonderful job in recruiting young jihadis.
Thanks for your service.
For those of you who are non-railroaders, a maul is a ~foot &half long bar of steel, rounded, with a ~inch and a half head at both ends, mounted on a wooden handle about 3 feet long. You swing that tool onto the inch-wide head of a railroad spike to drive it through the rail plate into the creosote wooden tie.
I remember in particular watching 3 guys in a triangle formation in turn whacking spikes for about a half hour at a time, take a breather, and resume all morning long. They rarely missed. These days, a machine will remove a bad tie, stick in new, and spike it in. Not like the good old days.
Somehow :) reading your essay brought all that back.
Your actions are also similar to another attorney, in the public news, who seems to be on a tear about his country and livelihood. Poor feller, he seems to have a burr in his Arkansas saddle. He seems to be royally pissed off.
Josh Marshall's site.
It's a real pity to see how far the credibility of the US DOJ has fallen. A good # of US Senators of both parties is in a terrible snit.
IMHO, this affair of Prince Albert and his 8 former underlings will have a substantial impact on all court cases handled by the Federal DOJ, past and future.
A natural progression, wouldn't you say, from our international reputation to domestic? How long do you think it will take to re-establish our reputation for justice and fairness?
Or will it be in the back of everyone's mind, foreign &domestic, that this democracy of ours will remain capable of electing another ( FIB ) president like Bush?
..another Congress who will prostitute itself to the reigning CIC?
All this is a knife-blade to the heart of our democracy. Are we up to defending ourselves?
.
Furthermore, evidence shows torture that is based on physical pain and brutality is often ineffective. It's less clear with respect to psychological techniques like sleep deprivation and waterboarding which seek to exploit human cognitive weaknesses. Is it justified to lump these two separate categories of what people loosely term "torture" together?
In short, people are not discussing the fundamental questions here.
Well, Andy, one sure way for you to find out would to undergo these techniques. You MIGHT find that you would say ANYTHING to placate the interrogators to get some sleep or to stop the water stuff, confessing to every crime of which you are accused and throwing some extra ones in to boot. But then, you might be of sterner stuff and, if innocent of any wrongdoing, would stalwartly stick with the innocence story and thereby ensure even more of the same. Or, even if innocent, you might confess to anything and everything just to get it to stop. Or, if you were guilty, you might say, "enough!" and give up the keys to the next 9/11 attack. Or you might be unlucky enough to have inept or sadistic interrogators who can't tell the truth when it hits them in the face or who don't care. Or you might be a fanatic who eagerly anticipates all of those virgins waiting in paradise.
Whatever. Fundamental enough for you?
.
Mental torure is worse if you ask me, but there simply isn't any need to go through split hairs with a fine tooth comb here. The IMT Charter (Nuremberg principles) state:
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against peace: * * *
(b) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas * * *
(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population * * *
IMT Charter (1945), art. 6.
It's easy to understand all of this if you just imagine how you would want your 14-year-old daughter treated if she was arrested on a drug charge. Mistreating a prisoner is as low as it gets; once you start down that road, you're on the fast-track to the blackest depths of depravity.
IOTM that this discussion has been limited to the impact of questionable interrogation techniques on the subject. What about the interrogator? Back when I had some little experience in these areas, any professional worth his/her salt would have adamantly refused to engage in questionable practices, if for no other reason than CYA. There used to be laws about these things, you know. Further, in my experience, no professional would have ever degraded or soiled himself by doing such things. Something about being an American. Or a human being. Guess we were all just weak sisters.
According to practically all international definitions of torture, "waterboarding" or "sleep deprivation" is torture.
And not so long ago, the USA had the same view.
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984"
Signed by the USA April 18, 1988. Ratified Oct. 21 1994.
I also don´t understand how you define "coercion". Or why you would want to define "waterboarding" or "sleep deprivation" as only "psychological techniques ... which seek to exploit human cognitive weaknesses".
"Sleep deprivation".
If these descriptions are even somewhat true, I´d be extremely wary of any confessions made while being "sleep deprived". And I´d be extremely wary to use such confessions against other prisoners. Because such "confessions" or "intel" seems to be pretty unreliable.
Furthermore, evidence shows torture that is based on physical pain and brutality is often ineffective. It's less clear with respect to psychological techniques like sleep deprivation and waterboarding which seek to exploit human cognitive weaknesses.
Congratulation, comrade!
Do you really want to copy Stalin´s NKVD?
To say the truth, I´m absolutely amazed by some of the views expressed by Americans today. You survived and won WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. With WW2 and the Cold War arguably a greater danger to the survival of the USA.
And now with a bunch of terrorists - which can´t really destroy the USA - some of you totally loose it. Don´t you realize that you´re actually helping them? That you´re swallowing their bait?
It´s a simple fact of life that intel normally isn´t 100% accurate. Which means that you will catch / arrest innocents along with some guilty people. And every time you use "psychological techniques", "coercive techniques", "extraordinary rendition" or "torture" on an innocent person, you are helping Al-Qaeda.
They might loose 1, 5 or 10 guys because of these "techniques", but the use of these "techniques" on innocents will give them 10, 50 or 100 new recruits.
What is even more surprising is that the ones who are most terrified seem to picture themselves as "tough guys" when, in fact, they are just cowards.
I went through SERE school in the early 1990's and I was able to experience first hand what many would call torture. I can't discuss any details because I signed a non-disclosure agreement, but if you do some research you can find out for yourself what SERE students are subjected to. The resistance portion of the school is designed to teach techniques to make one more resistant to abusive and coercive interrogation. One thing I learned is that everyone is different whether you're talking about mental or physical coercion - meaning that each individual is able to resist certain techniques differently. What one considers unbearable another may be able to withstand indefinitely. Obviously, it was still a training environment, so instructors could not do things like drill holes in my ribcage or flay my skin - common sadistic torture techniques used by insurgents in Iraq. However, they had much more leeway with psychological techniques. Let me assure you that none of it was pleasant, but I suffered no long-term ill effects and learned much about both myself and the various methods our enemies use to attempt to extract information or propaganda from us.
So please spare me, I do have some idea of what I'm talking about. Instead of aspersions, perhaps you could answer the questions? At what point does coercion become torture? At what point does interrogation become illegal? At what point will a particular technique produce bogus information? You see, it's not as simple and clear cut as you'd like it to be. These issues must be discussed because how else are we to know what is acceptable and what is not? Obviously, people have different views and that's only natural, but together a compromise must be made on where to draw that line.
Charles,
I'm familiar with the IMT charter. The problem, like torture, is one of definition. Torture is frequently defined as
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person..."
What defines "severe pain and suffering" as opposed to moderate pain and suffering? The definition does not say all pain and suffering, so where do you draw the line? Is keeping someone in a cold room for 30 minutes "severe pain and suffering?" What about an hour? What about two? What about 20? How much sleep over what period are detainees legally entitled to before it becomes "severe pain and suffering?" You see, it does require a fine tooth comb, because, like all legal matters, there is a line or gray area between what is acceptable and what is not. What, in your view, is a humane interrogation? What specific coercive measures are allowed during interrogations under international law? Is there a time limit on how long you can interrogate someone in one sitting? Is it acceptable to scream at the detainee? What about loud music? For how long? You see, the details matter. A lot. I'd be very interested to read a description of what you would consider a humane interrogation of an EPW or terrorist suspect.
Addendum: Detlef posted while I was writing the above, so here is my response to him/her:
One thing your comment completely overlooks is the the intent of the coercion. It should be obvious that there is a fundamental difference between interrogation, which, by its very definition, seeks to obtain information, and what you've described. They are far, far different. Stalin wasn't interested in information, he was interested in confessions. If someone is sleep deprived to the point of hallucination then that person is a worthless source of information. An interrogator whose goal is to obtain actionable intelligence would never let any technique go to the extremes that you cite because it's counterproductive and blatantly illegal. The person can't tell reality from fantasy, so what information could he/she possibly give? The same thing is true with respect to your South Africa example. The argumentative technique of citing extremist examples with the underlying premise that they apply to all situations is an old one, but as specious as ever. You, and so many others, seem to assume that the techniques you describe are exactly what we did and are doing to people like KSM. You assume the extreme examples despite the obviousness that they are neither practical nor desirable for interrogation. Interrogation, because of its goal to obtain accurate information, is fundamentally different from most of the coercive torture that takes place in the world - coercive torture that has no practical limit because the goal is sadism, punishment, or propaganda. Our own forces during Vietnam suffered the same thing. After the first couple of weeks the North Vietnamese were no longer interested in information. They used torture for sadism's sake and to attempt to force a mindless act like signing a piece of paper or making a statement. Those cases allow the extremities you describe because the product does not require a sound mind that can think, interact and recall facts.
So, in addition to what I said above, degree matters as well. It is another critical factor that is missing from the debate here. It's why I suggested that largely psychological techniques are better for interrogators because they cause no lasting damage when used in moderation. As an example, let's talk more about sleep deprivation. This is actually a tactic the police commonly use. Their intent is to fatigue the individual through long, repeated questioning. From some of the Army interrogators I know, the sleep deprivation they use is similar and not at all the extremes that you cite. If one's goal is information, it should be apparent there are practical limits on what one can do to get that information.
I know you all must think I'm some pro-torture kind of guy. That would be mistaken. I support legal coercive interrogation which is why my point here is to get you to think about PRACTICALITIES. If I'm an interrogator what are my SPECIFIC legal limits when trying to get information from a terrorist suspect or known terrorist? That's the crux. You can sit here all day and talk about how bad torture is, but until you define it down to the level that an interrogator can practically use to remain within the law, then you're just blowing hot air and obfuscating the debate. That's what I'd like to see more people discuss because it's critically important particularly since people view terms like "torture" and "severe pain" differently. I'm anxiously awaiting your responses.
.
You went to SERE SCHOOL - you knew it was school and the instructors had limits and the course would end. How, exactly, does that experience qualify you to say what is and is not torture for someone who isn't in training to resist torture AND KNOWS THAT IT WILL END????
Let's get a bit more real - what would you not do, even if it was within your "SPECIFIC legal limits"?
Why don't we go back to the basics?
My copy of FM 30-15 Intelligence Interrogation of Sept 1978 states:
Let me add a bit to that. First it totally screws up your collection effort since the vast majority of sources are those of low-knowledgability, Ma and Pa Kettle types who are spoken to during screenings. Now if they know that you are possibly going to put the thumbscrews to them do you think they are going to volunteer any information? What would you do? Same goes with walk-in sources which are usually your best sources, they come in under thsir own steam with something to say. How many of these guys are you going to get if they know that they might end up being waterboarded for their troubles?
Second it brutalizes your ops. The secret to being a good interrogator, and I know most won't believe this, is being a people person. Being the type of intel professional that has an actual interest in the target culture and respects the sources he/she comes across. All successful intelligence interrogations are based on building rapport and if you can't do that your productivity is going to be slight. A torturer is not going to build rapport or trust and will have the tendecy to go force high as his normal SOP in dealing with sources. He'll get a lot of talk, but how much is actually intelligence information? In the end he or she becomes something very unpleasant and useless from a collection perspective.
Finally, and I can't stress this enough, torture is not really a technique for humint collection, it is an exercise of domination and power. That is the reason it is common to police states. They are not so much interested in the information the prisoner has, but in breaking him, in making him say or do things for the state's purposes. Allowing torture as an intelligence collection technique allows it as a police technique as well.
The same sadistic nimrods who devised this policy of torture for intelligence collection have been the same who have abused our intelligence services for their own pre-decided policies. In some cases the same men who decided to out Valerie Plame and destroyed the valuable covert collection apparatus around her for whatever reasons, are the same who have signed off on this policy of torture. Their record in understanding intelligence and making intelligence policy is a disaster.
Name one intelligence professional who backs this torture policy? One person who knows intel who thinks this is a good idea? The answer is that there aren't any. . .
Consider for instance retired FBI interrogator Dan Coleman . . ..
Just shut up, please.
If you really have a 16 year old daughter, you should be old enough to remember the Cold War. You know, thousands of nuclear missiles...
And if you´re not that old, stop posting comments from under your bed. We already know that you have a laptop and probably a wireless connection.
Sorry about that post...