Hang Your Head in Shame

[rmthunter]

I'm really trying not to be inflammatory, but this, it seems to me, is the most serious question we've had to face in a long, long time as a nation. It looks as though we will now legally adopt torture as a routine technique in interrogation, and I'm just sick.

Marty Lederman at Balkinization has been all over this. Here is pretty much a summary post, with links to his other comments. Jack Balkin links to the text of the compromise.

I found this quote from Balkin's post particularly unnerving:

The reason why the President and his Administration are daring to offer this bill now is that they believe that we Americans will not punish them politically for doing it. Quite the contrary: they believe that we Americans will think them strong and courageous and forceful for doing so.

They think that we Americans will actually reward them at the polls for legalizing torture.

That is one of the most chilling things about this entire episode. Have we become so complacent as a country, so easily lied to, that our leaders now think that they can legalize torture before our very eyes and that we will actually thank them for doing so?

I checked out Volokh Conspiracy to get a take from what I consider more right-leaning legal bloggers. Strangely enough, not a word.

My problem is that it hands a president we know is irresponsible the authority to determine, with no oversight of any kind, what techniques will be used, denies victims of this policy any recourse -- in short, it legalizes everything the administration has been doing that violates the Geneva Conventions.

I'm really surprised that I'm the one to start this thread.

[nicholmere]

I think it is a predictable result of the if you are not with us you are against us attitude.

[drmomentum[$]]

What do you say about torture? About people so afraid that they're willing to authorize it? About being in an official "constant state of emergency" for 5 years. About people dispensing with oversight?

My disgust for the Republicans couldn't get any worse, so most of my disappointment is with the Democrats.

Why did any Democrat spend any time this week commenting about another world leader calling Bush a name? Probably because we have two parties that are both more concerned with keeping and gaining power than they are with limiting governmental power.

-JP

[phoenixx[$]]

Adding to the reasons why I'm Libertarian.

This is appalling. I am moving my blog to a Word Press platform today, so look for my commments on it later in the weekend. Thankks for calling to my attention.

[rmthunter]

Atrios quotes this piece by Charles Pierce at TAPPED:

The New York Times has the right of it here, limning the pathetic gullibility at the heart of the "compromise." There is nothing in this bill that President Thumbscrews can't ignore. There is nothing in this bill that reins in his feckless and dangerous reinterpretation of the powers of his office. There is nothing in this bill that requires him to take it -- or its congressional authors -- seriously. Two weeks ago, John Yoo set down in The New York Times the precise philosophical basis on which the administration will sign this bill and then ignore it. The president will decide what a "lesser breach" of the Geneva Conventions is? How can anyone over the age of five give this president that power? And wait until you see the atrocity that I guarantee you is coming down the tracks concerning the fact that the president committed at least 40 impeachable offenses with regard to illegal wiretapping.

And the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives -- "Aggressive interrogation techniques" -- the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

I think that about sums it up. I noted myself that the Democrats seemed to be hoping to ride this issue on McCain's coattails, which only proves their stupidity. It was a no-brainer to figure out he'd turn. I think the word "feckless" applies much more to the Democrats at this point than it does to President "L'Etat, c'est moi" Bush.

To quote myself, "the Republicans are too corrupt to govern and the Democrats are too stupid." So we wind up with crap like this. Now what do we do?

[wivabef]

Ironically, for a brief shining moment, I was proud of the breakaway Republicans. Now they are all reaching a "compromise" and there shouldn't be.

The Geneva convention is quite clear, there is no need to define what IS torture. And as for whether it is every acceptable, the answer should be a resounding one word "Never."

Shame on all the politicians, who are so anxious to reach a compromise so that they can run home and get back into office to commit to another two or six years of mediocrity.

[theworm[$]]

Thanks for starting this thread, Bob.

I am embarrassed, disgusted and ashamed.

I am not going to do the democratic/republican thing. Everyone knows that I'm a Democrat, but I'm not going to bash Republicans - just a few. I am disgusted with the current administration. I am repulsed by so much of the lack of human decency that I see. The cowboy politics. The megalomaniacal agenda.

The "torture" issue, should be a non-issue. The fact that it's not just tells me that I must have had my head in the sand. So sadly, I am somewhat disgusted with myself as well.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I'm struck by the arguments I hear supporting some of the interrogation techniques, especially when I hear "we're the only ones following the Geneva Convention anyway." I thought that "everyone else" doing something was not sufficient justification for others to do the same thing... heck, that school of thought has been put forth on these very boards, several times We were so determined to take the moral high ground when it came to Godless Communism that we added "under God" to our Pledge, but when it comes to torture, we're quick to justify our actions instead of being The Country That Doesn't Torture People. Very sad.

[rmthunter]

If you want to point at the main indicator of the moral decline of America, just consider that this debate is even taking place in this country.

As I've read more about this, I've gone way past anger. If I can stay coherent long enough, my senators and congresswoman are going to get some pretty strong letters. They're all Democrats and they're as much to blame as anyone else.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Honestly? Nothing surprises me anymore. It's sad to say, but this hit my radar as "Huh. More of the same." It isn't anything new. It isn't anything I didn't already expect.

I guess I post more when things surprise me. Floridians still surprise me. This Administration does not.

[erik_kosberg]

Rushing Off a Cliff

...a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[rmthunter]

This post, by my namesake at DailyKos, is tremendous. It's a fairly cynical and I'm afraid pretty much on point analysis:

The anti-torture choice was abandoned long ago. The "moderate" Republicans could have chosen to block any authorization for torturing U.S. prisoners right from the bat; they refused.

This legislation is political salve; it is not required law. The Constitution and existing law, presuming for the faintest half-shadow of a moment that the administration could be expected to follow it, speak clearly and decisively on the issues of habeus corpus, and trial, and on torture. This legislation is simply a show trial against the Constitution, done for the expediency of displaying Republican toughness, where toughness is defined as having no moral, ethical, or legal boundary that cannot be moved, if a poll number sticks up against it.

[erik_kosberg]

Great post over at DailyKos.

Bush long ago made it clear that he has no shame. Congress has now made it clear that they don't either. The Democrats who are going along with this monstrosity are in some ways even worse than the Republicans who are. At least the Republicans are doing it for selfish partisan reasons. This bill is an open embracement of fascism, pure and simple. To call it anything else is a lie.

"In one sense, the debate over the detainee bill might as well be cancelled — proponents of this bill aren't going to be swayed by evidence or reason — but on principle alone, what does it say about a Senate that devotes three days to an anti-gay bill that they know can't pass, but 10 hours to a measure to discard habeas, undercut due process, and embrace torture?"

[Stokes Pennwalt]

wivabef said

The Geneva convention is quite clear, there is no need to define what IS torture.

We've been debating what constitutes "torture" for several years and you say there is no need for a definition? Okay.

The Convention's definiton of torture is not adequate. The verbage of the articles is woefully obsolete for the new type of war being fought all over the globe, and as a result we are now facing serious questions of what is actually illegal according to the treaties we're party of.

What the world needs is a useful and distinct line between allowable and unallowable interrogation techniques. This correlates pretty directly with what you'd define as an "enemy combatant", which is a shitty obsolete definition in and of itself.

For what it's worth, I've had some of the things that we've done to the guys at GTMO done to me during training. They really aren't that bad. Calling things like sleep deprivation and waterboarding "torture" would probably make a real torturer giggle.

[rmthunter]

Stokes Pennwalt said

We've been debating what constitutes "torture" for several years and you say there is no need for a definition? Okay.

The Convention's definiton of torture is not adequate. The verbage of the articles is woefully obsolete for the new type of war being fought all over the globe, and as a result we are now facing serious questions of what is actually illegal according to the treaties we're party of.

First, in the present climate of public discourse, it's become a routine matter to "debate" issues that are cut and dried. It's called "obfuscation." Consider the evolution "debate," for example: there is no "debate" on the validity of evolutionary theory; there is, however, a political agenda. And, while Congress and the public at large have been debating the validity of various methods of -- what's the euphemism du jour? "coercive interrogation?" -- the administration has managed to remove our entire legal tradition from the equation, including habeas corpus and judicial oversight, and left the entire thing in the hands of a man whom most of the people in the country distrust. I'd call that a stunning success for someone, if not for America.

And why the rush? Why are we in such a hurry to validate the practices that this administration has engaged in -- and to shield them from prosecution -- before November? From what I've been reading, it seems that the bill as it has passed is even worse than the "compromise" among the various wings of the Republican party -- full of "technical errors" -- and it's not like interrogation is going to stop while Congress hashes it out. Why is there such haste to pass a bill that has sweeping provisions that affect the basic pattern of our government without serious deliberation of its ramifications? Well, that's a no-brainer.

As for a "new type of war" -- let's consider that the only war we are engaged in is the war in Iraq, which is a war of choice and a huge blunder and, at its inception, had nothing to do with opposing terrorism. The administration is calling a response to a tactic a "war" because it sells well with the base. Let's reissue Rosie the Riveter posters. What has been effective against terrorists are law-enforcement actions. It's not a war, new type or old type. It's a convenient excuse for grabbing power.

What the world needs is a useful and distinct line between allowable and unallowable interrogation techniques. This correlates pretty directly with what you'd define as an "enemy combatant", which is a shitty obsolete definition in and of itself.

We've had that line. It's been ensconced in law, in treaties, and in the armed forces' own rules. Everyone else seems to be able to figure it out, whether they adhere to it or not. "Enemy combatant?" Another definition that we've left to the discretion of one man. As an American, that makes me more than a little uncomfortable.

For what it's worth, I've had some of the things that we've done to the guys at GTMO done to me during training. They really aren't that bad. Calling things like sleep deprivation and waterboarding "torture" would probably make a real torturer giggle.

OK, so you've been trained to resist certain torture techniques. Piece o' cake, huh? How many days were you waterboarded? Subjected to freezing temperatures and physically stressful positions? Deprived of sleep? Not how many hours -- how many days?

Given that every interrogation expert I've seen quoted anywhere has stated unequivocally that torture does not provide useful intelligence, and that we have no definitive example of gaining useful intelligence from these techniques at present, I have to wonder at the motivations of those who insist on using them.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

rmhunter said

We've had that line. It's been ensconced in law, in treaties, and in the armed forces' own rules. Everyone else seems to be able to figure it out, whether they adhere to it or not. "Enemy combatant?" Another definition that we've left to the discretion of one man. As an American, that makes me more than a little uncomfortable.

How about this: Can you cite the article that explicitly defines waterboarding as torture?

Re-read the letter Captain Ian Fishback wrote to Senator McCain about precisely this. He said exactly what I am trying to explain: due to a lack of definition in protocols regarding prisoner treatment, there have been some bad situations that could have been prevented by clearer guidance in how we should treat bad guys who don't follow the rules.

To this end, I'm saying that the GCs (and by extension the Laws of Land Warfare) need to be amended to take into account the new type of warfare so that we avoid the ambiguity of "enemy combatants", holding captives in inferior conditions and without trial, inadvertently causing the deaths of civilians due to fire restrictions, etc. We need a black and white definition of torture that we can apply to reality, that doesn't leave any room for debate. Can we agree that would be a good thing?

rmhunter said

OK, so you've been trained to resist certain torture techniques. Piece o' cake, huh? How many days were you waterboarded? Subjected to freezing temperatures and physically stressful positions? Deprived of sleep? Not how many hours -- how many days?

Stop trying to create arguments for me. It is infantile.

In SERE school (link) my squad was "captured" three days into our final E&E exercise and held as EPWs (fully protected under the GCs) for the remaining three days, during which the members of my squad were subjected to pretty much every lawful interrogation technique you see listed on that page, and in exactly the same way that we would subject a real EPW to them.

Obviously this is a much different situation than the real prisoners are in, and I wouldn't attempt to directly compare the two. However, I've experienced having the exact same things done to me. Contrary to your assumption it was hardly a "piece o' cake". It was very unpleasant, in fact. My point was that it really wasn't anything worse than extremely uncomfortable, which is what all of these interrogation techniques are.

I think it comes down to if you think prisoners have a right not to be intentionally scared and to not be made intentionally uncomfortable. That doesn't particularly concern me. I also think diluting the definition of the word "torture" by encompassing whatever you personally consider reprehensible makes the term lose all useful meaning.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound and gagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown.

Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News that they were trained to handcuff the prisoner and cover his face with cellophane to enhance the distress. According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.

"Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as the intentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering," said John Sifton, an attorney and researcher with the organization Human Rights Watch. "That would include water boarding." ...

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago....

"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," ...

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 ...

ABC News: History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding

[rmthunter]

Stokes Pennwalt said

How about this: Can you cite the article that explicitly defines waterboarding as torture?

Since MJ has taken care of that for me, I'm simply going to point out that the whole "definitions" exercise is a dodge -- if you get everyone tied up with defining just which of the reprehensible activities you want to engage in are the most reprehensible, they're going to forget about the real issues, which in this case are that we don't do that, and we don't leave it up to one person of dubious reliability to make those decisions. (And, to forestall the inevitable cries of "Bush hatred," let me add that's not the kind of power I would consent to give to any president, any time -- in cases like this, everyone is of dubious reliability.) That is a major reason we have the moral authority in the world that we do -- or did. I think any responsible person is going to say that one of the premier values of any civilized people is that you don't mistreat people who can't defend themselves. That's certainly one that I grew up with, if you want to talk about traditional American values.

Now we're saddled with an administration that's no more than a bunch of schoolboys who get their jollies pulling the wings off flies. Yeah, well -- they're only flies.

It's all of a piece -- incarceration on the decision of one person, no charges, no recourse, "coercive interrogation," gulags, warrantless wiretaps of anyone deemed "suspicious," no judicial review, no congressional oversight, "war" against a tactic -- and a "war" with no end in sight. . . .

Please don't hand me the "post-9/11 world" BS -- just exactly how has the world changed? Terrorism has been a reality in this world at least since the Easter Uprising, we've had to deal with horrible, brutal regimes determined to conquer the entire world, and now suddenly we have to remake America in the image of a police state with all the stalinist grace notes?

No.

(OK -- I'm ranting. But it offends me on a very basic level to see a group that cloaks itself in moral values blithely violate one of the most basic and most nearly universal of those values and then turn around and demand that we not only validate that behavior but participate in the destruction of our own country.)