About Me

Name: Joe
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

What Is Being Done In Our Names

 

Greg Dejerejian outlines what our front running announced GOP Candidates (other than John McCain) think is acceptable: 

1) Long Term Standing, as the CIA is using it per the above, is basically a particularly harsh form of sleep deprivation, combined with a 'stress position'. Menachem Begin, Israel’s former Prime Minister, was tortured using sleep deprivation by the Soviet Union. He described it in this fashion:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget....Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it…I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them—if they signed—uninterrupted sleep! And they signed....And having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days....The main thing was—to sleep.

This is torture, as practiced during the Cold War by the KGB, and Tom Maguire stands four-square behind it, indeed deems it appropriate to joke about.

2) The Cold Cell, otherwise known as induced hypothermia. As the NGO Physicians for Human Rights has pointed out, “The Cold Cell” technique can lead to “reduced psychological function and mental capacity; loss of muscle function, harm to the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and nervous systems; and even death.” Indeed, detainees in U.S. captivity have died as a result of hypothermia.

Again, this is torture, and Tom Maguire supports it with barely contained glee, if the comment quoted above is any indication.

3) As for water-boarding, forget about its origins during this or that Inquisition, let us instead look at more recent history, and recall how it was condemned by U.S. personnel in previous wars:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. "The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College. Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines. "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."

In short, Maguire approves, indeed proudly cheer-leads, the use of torture such as protracted sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia, and water-boarding, as a regularized policy to be undertaken under the auspices of the C.I.A. In this, he differs even from Glenn Reynolds, who had written: "But regardless of what rules Congress adopts, I'm certainly against the Cheney proposal to exempt the CIA. First of all, if this sort of thing is too wrong for Americans to do, it's too wrong for any Americans to do, period. Right?” (Yet Reynolds, given his incessant joking about Guantanamo, the detention center that is in many ways emblematic of how deeply flawed interrogation tactics took root during the Bush Administration, and given his oft-stated musings about whether ‘torture-lite’ really constitutes torture, has very little credibility as an intellectually honest opponent of torture, despite his protestations to the contrary).

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/05/is_this_the_american_way_induc.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cherry Picking Experts

  I want to see a vigorous offensive in dealing with threats facing this country.  I want victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I want to see the perpetrators of 9/11 be killed or brought to justice.  I would describe myself as a conservative.  I have been increasingly disturbed, however, but many on the right promoting coercive force and even torture as a legitimate policy for the United States Government to adopt.  I do not believe people offering such views are evil.  Their promotion of coercive force and torture is mostly about security and protecting the innocent.   This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue.   There are many conservatives who are absolutely opposed to torture (and not surprisingly, many of them are pro-life).  http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1840  

There is not much difference morally in waterboarding a detained al Qaeda member (like the Bush Administration did) and rendering terrorist suspects to Egypt or other "friendly" countries for torture by proxy (which is what the Clinton Administration did). 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006406 
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6
 
    Those who promote these views make a valid point that we can bomb and kill the innocent by the thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) in war to achieve a legitimate military goal.  If torturing a terror suspect, such as a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, can save thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, shouldn't we do what is necessary?  Waterboarding may be bad, but it is not the same as putting someone on the rack.  If it saves thousands of lives--is it morally reprehensible not to do it?   Especially since true torture by U.S. forces is, thankfully, the exception not the rule.  Regardless of what George Tenent said on Sixty Minutes, torture and wrongful deaths of detainees definitely happened.  Here is Slate's interactive display on coercive force and torture post 9/11:  http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/introduction.html  You may not like its content, but the information in that story is correct and verifiable. 

    There has been an ongoing debate (if you can call it that) between Andrew Sullivan vs The Corner (although not all corner commentators are pro torture) and Dean Barnett on Hugh Hewitt's site over whether coercive force and torture is justified.  The posts are numerous, but here are a few. 
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_25_05hm.html    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk1NDY4NDAxMjg2N2RlYzQzODRlYThlZjRlYzJkZmE=    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ2NTM4M2ZjZTRjZmNhOTIwMjEwZWI4OWRhNDk2Y2Ihttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTY4Y2QzNTNmYjU5MjU5NDJiNWNiZmNkZTAwOTczMTE=   http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e3e539ef-c20a-488a-b9cc-ee2441e04e7a    

    Alan Dershowitz made the argument that torture of Khaild Sheikh Mohammed could be justified shortly after his capture. 
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/    Charles Krauthammer has made similar arguments in the defense of torture.  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp    

    I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's observation about the pieties expressed by the anti-torture side.  This has led to the parties talking past one another.  There is, however, common ground.    John Derbyshire, who immediately after Abu Ghraib was exposed made light of it. 
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTMxNmI5ZmE2Y2Y3MWU5MTM2NjJlNzVmYmUxZWQxYTY= Yet Mr. Derbyshire later authored this article which is stridently anti-torture.  http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111601.shtml    Mr. Derbyshire makes the point about torture ineffectiveness and goes beyond to say it is not justified even in the "ticking bomb scenerio."   There is of course a difference between coercion, sexual humilation, and torture (where those lines cross can be blurred) that confuses the debate.  

    Dean Barnett indirectly accused me of "cherry picking experts" by posting the interview Hugh Hewitt had with Colonel Stewart Herrington (Ret.). 
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/c91d0039-056d-4c45-8ea7-44e4f22796fd  Col. Herrington, who has conducted thousands of U.S. Army military interrogations from Vietnam to Iraq, is against coercive force being used to obtain information from suspects.  Herrington makes the point that coercive techniques such as loud music and sleep deprivation, while not torture per se, are generally counter productive to getting good intelligence from a detained terrorist or suspect.  I know I am no expert on this subject, but I can recognize that Col. Herrington is.  http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7   I have yet to see any of the pro coerive force crowd actually say Col. Herrington is wrong or find an interrogation expert to debate him.   General Petraeus also came forward and condemned torture in explicit terms.  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/petraeus_comes_.html  I wonder, does Dean Barnett consider General Petraeus an expert on this topic? 
 
    So the subject of this blog is simple:   Should we engage in torture and coercive force in interrogation?   I admit that I am biased on the subject.   I am against coercive force and torture being institutionalized and legalized.  Denzel Washington makes the argument here in the fictional 1999 film, The Siege.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7auLWUWdk  Strange to think that movie was made before 9/11 (and the towers of the WTC are in many of the shots).  Still, the issues addressed in that film are just as current today.  

    I also admit that right after 9/11, I would have been calling out for torturing anyone associated with that attack (out of revenge and anger).   I know I thought it at the time.   By reviewing the factual issues, reading various commentators (such as Andrew Sullivan), and considering the policy behind these decisions--I am convinced that torture is not only morally wrong but ineffective. 

    I recognize things might happen in the heat of battle that, while technically illegal, should be forgiven.  I supported forgiving Lt. Col. West of his mock execution of an Iraqi insurgent.  
http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand.html?http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand_AllenWest.html   That does not mean we should encourage mock executions--only that we should be more forgiving of soldiers who step over the line in the stress of combat.  Soldiers and Marines risking their lives need to be held to a lesser, more forgiving standard on the battlefield. 

     I remain convinced, however,  that creating a legal system of torture and abuse of detained suspects, by the Department of Defense and by other agencies, such as the CIA, is un-American and definitely not in our best interests.  Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to discuss the issue with out name calling and pejoratives.  The moral issues pro and con are important.   

    Does torture even work?  Is the moral harm worth the benefit?  Is there even a benefit to doing it?  We all recognize that you can beat information out of suspects--the question is whether once you adopt such a poiicy you make your intelligence gathering operations more or less effective?    

    Some of the abuse that was unintended, such as Abu Ghraib, was still foreseeable with the policies being approved by the Bush Administration and Don Rumsfeld.   
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact  I believe that the propaganda and political disaster of Abu Ghraib endangered the entire Iraqi mission and definitely costs hundreds of additional American causualties (in inflaming the Iraqi insurgency).  Christopher Hitchens argues engaging in torture actually weakens your intelligence services:  http://www.slate.com/id/2102373/   Like Derbyshire's comments above, history has shown that.  I believe Hitchens, Colonel Herrington, and General Petraeus are right, but I welcome your views on the subject. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cherry Picking Experts

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP Candidates on Torture

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602412.html

In the long run, the GOP will regret being on the wrong side of this issue. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Redstate agrees with General Petraeus (and Andrew Sullivan). 

http://www.redstate.com/stories/national_security/profile_in_courage_award_general_david_h_petraeus

Dean--come back from the Dark Side! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

     I want to see a vigorous offensive in dealing with threats facing this country.  I want victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I want to see the perpetrators of 9/11 be killed or brought to justice.  I would describe myself as a conservative.  I have been increasingly disturbed, however, but many on the right promoting coercive force and even torture as a legitimate policy for the United States Government to adopt.  I do not believe people offering such views are evil.  Their promotion of coercive force and torture is mostly about security and protecting the innocent.   This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue.   There are many conservatives who are absolutely opposed to torture (and not surprisingly, many of them are pro-life).  http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1840  There is not much difference morally in waterboarding a detained al Qaeda member (like the Bush Administration did) and rendering terrorist suspects to Egypt or other "friendly" countries for torture by proxy (which is what the Clinton Administration did). 
    Those who promote these views make a valid point that we can bomb and kill the innocent by the thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) in war to achieve a legitimate military goal.  If torturing a terror suspect, such as a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, can save thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, shouldn't we do what is necessary?  Waterboarding may be bad, but it is not the same as putting someone on the rack.  If it saves thousands of lives--is it morally reprehensible not to do it?   Especially since true torture by U.S. forces is, thankfully, the exception not the rule.  Regardless of what George Tenent said on Sixty Minutes, torture and wrongful deaths of detainees definitely happened.  Here is Slate's interactive display on coercive force and torture post 9/11:  http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/introduction.html  You may not like its content, but the information in that story is correct and verifiable. 

    There has been an ongoing debate (if you can call it that) between Andrew Sullivan vs The Corner (although not all corner commentators are pro torture) and Dean Barnett on Hugh Hewitt's site over whether coercive force and torture is justified.  The posts are numerous, but here are a few. 
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_25_05hm.html    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk1NDY4NDAxMjg2N2RlYzQzODRlYThlZjRlYzJkZmE=    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ2NTM4M2ZjZTRjZmNhOTIwMjEwZWI4OWRhNDk2Y2Ihttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTY4Y2QzNTNmYjU5MjU5NDJiNWNiZmNkZTAwOTczMTE=   http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e3e539ef-c20a-488a-b9cc-ee2441e04e7a    

    Alan Dershowitz made the argument that torture of Khaild Sheikh Mohammed could be justified shortly after his capture. 
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/    Charles Krauthammer has made similar arguments in the defense of torture.  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp    

    I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's observation about the pieties expressed by the anti-torture side.  This has led to the parties talking past one another.  There is, however, common ground.    John Derbyshire, who immediately after Abu Ghraib was exposed made light of it. 
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTMxNmI5ZmE2Y2Y3MWU5MTM2NjJlNzVmYmUxZWQxYTY= Yet Mr. Derbyshire later authored this article which is stridently anti-torture.  http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111601.shtml    Mr. Derbyshire makes the point about torture ineffectiveness and goes beyond to say it is not justified even in the "ticking bomb scenerio."   There is of course a difference between coercion, sexual humilation, and torture (where those lines cross can be blurred) that confuses the debate.  

    Dean Barnett indirectly accused me of "cherry picking experts" by posting the interview Hugh Hewitt had with Colonel Stewart Herrington (Ret.). 
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/c91d0039-056d-4c45-8ea7-44e4f22796fd  Col. Herrington, who has conducted thousands of U.S. Army military interrogations from Vietnam to Iraq, is against coercive force being used to obtain information from suspects.  Herrington makes the point that coercive techniques such as loud music and sleep deprivation, while not torture per se, are generally counter productive to getting good intelligence from a detained terrorist or suspect.  I know I am no expert on this subject, but I can recognize that Col. Herrington is.  http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7   I have yet to see any of the pro coerive force crowd actually say Col. Herrington is wrong or find an interrogation expert to debate him.   General Petraeus also came forward and condemned torture in explicit terms.  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/petraeus_comes_.html  I wonder, does Dean Barnett consider General Petraeus an expert on this topic? 
 
    So the subject of this blog is simple:   Should we engage in torture and coercive force in interrogation?   I admit that I am biased on the subject.   I am against coercive force and torture being institutionalized and legalized.  Denzel Washington makes the argument here in the fictional 1999 film, The Siege.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7auLWUWdk  Strange to think that movie was made before 9/11 (and the towers of the WTC are in many of the shots).  Still, the issues addressed in that film are just as current today.  

    I also admit that right after 9/11, I would have been calling out for torturing anyone associated with that attack (out of revenge and anger).   I know I thought it at the time.   By reviewing the factual issues, reading various commentators (such as Andrew Sullivan), and considering the policy behind these decisions--I am convinced that torture is not only wrong but ineffective. 

    I recognize things might happen in the heat of battle that, while technically illegal, should be forgiven.  I supported forgiving Lt. Col. West of his mock execution of an Iraqi insurgent.  
http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand.html?http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand_AllenWest.html   

    Soldiers and Marines risking their lives need to be held to a lesser, more forgiving standard on the battlefield.  I remain convinced, however,  that creating a legal system of torture and abuse of detained suspects, by the Department of Defense and by other agencies, such as the CIA, is un-American and definitely not in our best interests.  Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to discuss the issue with out name calling and pejoratives.  The moral issues pro and con are important.   

    Does torture even work?  Is the moral harm worth the benefit?  Is there even a benefit to doing it?  We all recognize that you can beat information out of suspects--the question is whether once you adopt such a poiicy you make your intelligence gathering operations more or less effective?    

    Some of the abuse that was unintended, such as Abu Ghraib, was still foreseeable with the policies being approved by the Bush Administration and Don Rumsfeld.   
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact  I believe that the propaganda and political disaster of Abu Ghraib endangered the entire Iraqi mission and definitely costs hundreds of additional American causualties (in inflaming the Iraqi insurgency).  Christopher Hitchens argues engaging in torture actually weakens your intelligence services:  http://www.slate.com/id/2102373/   Like Derbyshire's comments above, history has shown that.  I believe Hitchens, Colonel Herrington, and General Petraeus are right, but I welcome your views on the subject. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »