If John McCain is to be believed, the torture that our servicemen and women have endured is the fault of the US military itself.
Many conservative political commentators have itemized McCain’s lack of conservative credentials, so I don’t intend to address the minutia of their analysis here.
But I do want to address two points which seem to have been obscured.
The first is his position on what is dubbed "torture."
So far as I can tell, he claims two things here.
First, he says that if America resorts to torture (and he seems to include water-boarding under his definition), then American soldiers will themselves become victims of torture. This "position" assumes that if the United States refrained from this practice, then all its enemies would do likewise. That argument is so ridiculous that it bears no further comment. It is fallacious as history so adequately demonstrates, and as the treatment of captured soldiers in Iraq so perfectly demonstrates. But it does suggest that the only reason such practices take place is that the United States somehow initiates them.
His second position relates to Vietnam, and his capture and alleged "torture." If we apply his logic – that US troops are tortured only when they initiate the process – he is in effect alleging that the reason he was tortured in Vietnam was because the United States, or more particularly the US military in Vietnam, started the practice first, and that he paid the price for their illegal actions. He is blaming the US military for the disregard of humane treatment towards the Vietnamese which, in turn, was visited on him. I find that a despicable accusation, although, no doubt, he would strenuously deny that he is making that point.
Associated with his position on "reciprocated torture" is his assertion that all techniques to illicit information are ineffective where coercion, physical or mental, is involved. He even claims to have successfully resisted such techniques himself.
Now let me admit that there are those of a barbaric disposition who inflict torture for the pure pleasure of the suffering of others, to wit, our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with the objective of protecting a civilian population, or our own troops. That is a barbarity that usually lies at the heart of military conflict – we are usually fighting people who have total disregard for human life, never mind such "windy" instruments as the Geneva Conventions. If they did have regard for such niceties we would probably not be in conflict with them in the first place. How we treat such people will simply have no impact on their reciprocal treatment of our own troops, or even civilians. We would only be doing it to assuage the consciences of those who are not putting their lives on the line for us. And, for me, we have no right to make such demands on the people we expect to protect our comfortable little lives.
But let me return to the effectiveness of so-called "torture." McCain claims to have suffered such treatment without having succumbed to it. Now I do have some knowledge of such things, and I simply do not believe him. Either what he was subjected to was totally ineffective due to the incompetence of his interrogators, or he was never subjected to it at all. If he was in fact subjected to effective techniques for extracting information he would have succumbed – it is that simple. Of course, sometimes less professional interrogators will not be satisfied with the information a detainee has available to divulge, and require what they cannot provide, in which case they will get told what they want to hear. But that does not detract from the effectiveness of the procedure: it works!!
The other issue I want to address is McCain’s insistence that Romney (whom I dislike as well) supported a timetable for surrender in Iraq. That is, as Romney has said, utterly dishonest. But it also demonstrates that McCain simply has no comprehension of how to manage Iraq, or indeed, any war.
From my repeated examination of what Romney said on the issue, what he was clearly saying is that the Iraqi government (if we could grace it with such a distinction) should be told that the United States is not prepared to sacrifice young American lives while Iraqi government officials bicker amongst themselves for the best political pickings. If McCain thinks we should permit them that luxury at the expense of young American lives he is not worthy to clean out my garbage, never mind be the Commander-in-Chief of the most dedicated young men and women on this planet. But perhaps McCain’s extended term in the US Senate has engendered a sort of rapport for political animals and their need to varnish their vanity irrespective of the price others have to pay for the furtherance of their own agendas.
I find this pompous little "American hero" quite sickening. God forbid that he becomes president of the United States of America. I for one will be liquidating my assets in what is the greatest country on earth. I’d even pay more under an Obama and Clinton – at least we’d know they intend to "shaft" us, and can prepare accordingly.
jbhmcmillan@escapingbooks.com
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Read more articles by Joseph BH McMillan
"But let me return to the effectiveness of so-called 'torture.' McCain claims to have suffered such treatment without having succumbed to it. Now I do have some knowledge of such things, and I simply do not believe him."
What knowledge would that be?
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Starting at comment #6:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/01/09/if-gop-runs-a-rino-for-president-the-party-will-crash-and-burn/
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 11, 2008
Mr. McMillan,
What evidence do you have that torture works?
What evidence do you have that McCain would have succumbed if he were tortured?
Mr. Ingles appears to have the better side of this discussion.
Comment by freelunch | February 11, 2008
Dear Mr Katzen,
To my utter shame, I once subjected my dog to mental coercion so that he would reveal to me where he had buried my favorite slipper. Get real! I may be stupid, just not that stupid!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
Torture works, believe me it works. You may lie, but you will only lie once. Ask Robbie Risner, Denton, or Thorsness about that. Should we engage in waterboarding? Should we force terrorists and other prisoners to listen to boy bands, rap or female country singers for 24 hours straight? The question of torture for this idiot dinosaur that is gonna represent the GOP into its loss in '08 is nothing but a political red herring designed to get some libs to vote for him, which they ain't. Water boarding is no more torture than forcing terrorist prisoners to watch the first 8 months of baseball.
Comment by Dean | February 11, 2008
I’m no fan of McCain, but Mr. McMillan should be ashamed of repeating the Left’s claim that American prisoners in the Hoa Lo Prison (“Hanoi Hilton”) weren’t tortured, which they certainly were. Their food was contaminated with feces as well. The torture only moderated about a month after Ho Chi Minh died in September 1969. However, Mr. McMillan is dead-on about the absurdity of McCain’s claim that our enemies will follow our example on the laws of war. The following passage from page 334 of the paperback edition of Guenter Lewy’s America in Vietnam shows how the Vietnamese Communist state circumvented the Geneva Convention:
“The Democratic Republic of Vietnam ratified the 1949 Geneva conventions in 1957, but with several reservations. One of these relates to Article 85 of the POW Convention, according to which prisoners of war “prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.” The North Vietnamese reservation stated that “prisoners of war prosecuted and convicted for war crimes or for crimes against humanity, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Nuremberg Court of Justice shall not benefit from the present Convention, as specified in Article 85.” After the start of the bombing of North Vietnam in 1965, the DRV took the position that the American pilots shot down and captured were war criminals and therefore not entitled to the benefits of the Geneva Convention. Threats to try pilots on charges of war crimes were abandoned after widespread international protests in July 1966, but the DRV nevertheless continuied to treat all American captives as convicted war criminals. The denial of the benefits of the Geneva convention was in violation of the North Vietnamese reservation, which requires prosecution and conviction for war crimes before a prisoner can be denied the protection of the humanitarian provisions of the convention.”
The purpose of the torture administered by the Vietnamese Communists was similar to that of Stalin’s Great Terror—to elicit confessions to crimes that never took place and to provide propaganda points for the Left in America as part of their dich van political warfare campaign.
Unmentioned in all the discussion of our war with the Islamists is whether our enemies even recognize any law of war other than Sharia, which accords those not in submission to Allah no rights. A responsible presidential candidate would know the answer to this question and would have the moral courage to point it out to the American people.
Comment by William Woodford | February 11, 2008
Torture does work but too much or improperly applied torture may get the answer the victim thinks you want instead of a closely guarded truth.
Most of the folks on this board appear to have never gone through anti-interrogation training, or any military training for that matter, but still think their opinion is valid evidence against the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation technique.
Let's try to talk about things we actually know something about. Vets that have been through wars and associated military training are getting tired of the prattling.
Comment by Mickey G | February 11, 2008
Back in Vietnam, they told my father pure and simple, "If they torture you, you will break. It is not a matter of if, but when."
Most of my military friends have related being told the same thing.
The oft repeated assertion that torture will make the victim say whatever is wanted, such as the Stalin showtrials underlines the basic point: torture works. The Stalin torturees knew that the torturers wanted a confession. And they gave it to them.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 11, 2008
Dear Mr William Woodford,
Where on earth did I say anything about the other POW’s in Hoa Lo Prison (“Hanoi Hilton”), or indeed in any other war where American servicemen have been subjected to all manner of barbarism?
I’m talking specifically about McCain, and the claims he has and does make. If you look around, I expect that you may find many ex-servicemen who share my reservations.
And I think I differentiate between ‘torture’ (a procedure to extract information in order to save the lives of troops and/civilians in the light of imminent threat), and what American servicemen experience at present in places like Iraq – barbarism for the pure ‘pleasure’ of the experience.
Perhaps the point I made was too subtle.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
"But let me return to the effectiveness of so-called "torture." McCain claims to have suffered such treatment without having succumbed to it. Now I do have some knowledge of such things, and I simply do not believe him."
Very interesting theoretical monograph. I have the impression from this that you have direct first hand experience of torture, on either the giving or receiving end. Is that true?
Comment by felix | February 11, 2008
Dear Mr. McMillan,
I'm afraid I'm not clever enough to understand your response to my last post. I had supposed that somebody who went out of his way to present himself as knowing what he was talking about would, perhaps, know what he was talking about.
My mistake.
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Dear Mr. McMillan,
You clearly stated “But let me return to the effectiveness of so-called ‘torture.’ McCain claims to have suffered such treatment without having succumbed to it.” I took this use of quotation marks to mean that McCain wasn’t really tortured by the Vietnamese Communists, a common leftist trope. McCain and the other American prisoners of war suffered tortures that made the abuses at Abu Ghraib pale by comparison.
WW
Comment by William Woodford | February 11, 2008
Mr. McMillan: You stated: "…I differentiate between ‘torture’ (a procedure to extract information in order to save the lives of troops and/civilians in the light of imminent threat), and what American servicemen experience at present in places like Iraq – barbarism for the pure ‘pleasure’ of the experience."
Unfortunately, on the ground the cases are not quite so clearly delineated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28human_rights_victim%29 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml
I'm also not aware - as I stated before in the conversation I linked to on this very site - of any imminent threats that had actually been averted due to 'enhanced interrogation techniques'.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 11, 2008
Normally when I post Comments here, I attempt to exercise a little self-restraint. On this occasion however, Moderators permitting, I am going to grant myself a little latitude.
It is so easy for us to tuck up at night, and forget that there are thousands of troops out there who could at any moment be killed, or worse, if such a fate can be comprehended, be abducted in Afghanistan or Iraq, and subjected to the most unspeakable and horrendous barbarity.
Now those who find that the idea of ‘torture’ makes them squeamish, I suggest that they be the ones to go to those men and women who are caged up in some basement subjected to such barbarity, and the utter helplessness that goes with that situation, and tell them that they really have to undergo such sacrifice to assuage the consciences of the rest of us. I would like those people to go and tell those troops that although we had the opportunity to extract information of their whereabouts in order to rescue them, that would have infringed someone’s ‘rights’, and McCain’s conscience.
Even better, I would like those ‘people of conscience’ to exchange positions with those troops. Let them spend time in a seeming eternity of fear and pain because we must preserve the ‘purity’ of our consciences.
Ah ha, many will say, you see ‘torture’ is inhumane. No!! Those troops will be subjected to such treatment even if we promised to crawl on our hands and knees for forgiveness, and irrespective of any information they divulge, and irrespective of how we extract information to defend ourselves.
Those who have experienced torture have a sort of code of honor. Each one knows that people ‘crack’ at different times (just as they do in combat), and under different circumstances. Some will succumb and spill the beans the minute an interrogator walks into the room – effective interrogators are well practiced at intimidation. Others will hold out a few hours, perhaps even a few days before they succumb. But the code of honor is that you do not condemn a fellow prisoner for succumbing a few minutes, or a few hours, before you do.
And that is what makes me sick about McCain. It seems to me that he is sheltering behind that code of honor to put other troops at risk. From all the accounts I have read, he sustained serious injuries when he was shot down. He was bayoneted in the foot and shoulder by his captors, and given a bit of a beating. It may offend the sensibilities of some, but that is not extraordinary behavior in combat, and it certainly is not ‘torture’.
Apparently, he was then denied medical treatment, and beaten (some say slapped around). Other POW’s apparently heard screaming from his cell. Now, as any medical practitioner will tell you, anyone sustaining such injuries from a motor accident will also spend several hours or days screaming with pain, especially if they do not have sedatives.
But that is not ‘torture’ either, in the proper sense of the procedure.
Yet McCain claims that what he was subjected to was the ‘real thing’, and that his fortitude held out against divulging any information that could assist the enemy (let me know, please, if he is actually claiming otherwise). And that is what really makes me mad.
And it makes me mad because there are many people out there who have been subjected to the real thing, and succumbed – as everybody does in that situation. Can you imagine the utter shame such people will feel when McCain comes along and claims that his fortitude is such that he is almost ‘god-like’; that it is only those ‘lesser-mortals’ who succumb to such procedures.
But then McCain goes on to use his ‘experience’ to insist that the rest of us must be prepared to sacrifice even our own families on the ‘rights’ of those who are intent on killing us. He insists that we should not be allowed to use tried and tested techniques in order to extract information that could save our own innocent children while they sleep in their beds, or fly in an aircraft.
We must simply take his word for it that these procedures will not work to protect our families. And the vast majority of the people buy into this nonsense simply because he says so; and he knows that few, if any, POWs will break their code of honor.
And those people who could be rescued from the most unspeakable and barbaric acts in some basement in Iraq or Afghanistan must simply make the sacrifice to make McCain’s point.
McCain’s whole credibility depends on us buying into his ‘story’. He could not support ‘torture’ because it would imply that he succumbed to it. That would not fit the ‘war hero’ image. But I have news for McCain – most people would perfectly understand that succumbing to torture doesn’t detract from being a hero. But it is not heroic to bullshit about the whole thing in order to enhance a political agenda.
Do I have sympathy for McCain’s plight in Vietnam? Of course! But I deeply resent the fact that he has used what from all accounts bears little resemblance to effective interrogation methods, to put the rest of us at risk, especially the troops on the front line who know full well that the procedures we use will make not one bit of difference to how they will be treated if caught – except that if we did have the procedures in place, at least they would have a chance of rescue – and our children may sleep safer in their beds at night.
Mr Ingles – Comment 13 – the www’s you cite make no contribution to the discussion. The injuries sustained by Spc Baker are common on any Saturday night in most any country in the Western World. So far as effective interrogation techniques are concerned, since they are effectively illegal, it is not surprising that there are few reports of them. Would you volunteer that you had acted in a way that may result in your prosecution, even if it had saved the lives of fellow troops? When an officer did threaten to shoot an Iraqi in the head (and did gain the information which averted a disaster), he was prosecuted – although, thank God, it was dismissed in the end, as I recall. Not exactly an invitation to report methods that may save lives!
I also suggest you research how the Russians dealt with those who took Russian hostages in Lebanon in the 1980's if you really want to know how effective such tequniques can be.
Mr William Woodford, Comment 12 and previous. I trust the above deals with your Comment about McCain. I do not think he suffered what can properly be described as torture, but I have not one shadow of doubt that other POW’s did.
On this Comment you made previously – “Unmentioned in all the discussion of our war with the Islamists is whether our enemies even recognize any law of war other than Sharia, which accords those not in submission to Allah no rights. A responsible presidential candidate would know the answer to this question and would have the moral courage to point it out to the American people.”
You are wrong! I have been saying that for years. Although you are right that none of the presidential candidates has any “moral courage”.
Here is an extract from my article Free Speech, the War on Terror and Islam:
“And we have already had a foretaste of the savagery to which our enemies are willing to descend in pursuit of their objectives. They do not operate under rules of war prescribed by man. Instruments such as the Geneva Conventions simply have no application in their conduct of war. Acts of "perfidy" (such as feigning intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender; feigning incapacitation by wounds; feigning civilian or non-combatant status), and denial of "quarter" (not taking prisoners), are not seen as war crimes. Rather, they are seen as opportunities for deception and, as Mohammed said, "war is deception".
“Islamic rules of war are prescribed by a higher authority, and following those rules is rewarded in "heaven". Surah [chapter] 5, verse 36 of the Koran sets out the basic rules of engagement: "The punishment of those who wage war against God And His Apostles, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution [beheading under Islamic law], or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land: That is their disgrace In this world, and A heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." Verse 36 makes clear that execution, crucifixion and mutilation are visited upon prisoners: "Except for those who repent Before they fall Into your power." [my emphasis]
“Muslims are also exhorted to fight with their goods and persons in God's cause: "Go ye forth, (whether equipped) Lightly or heavily, and strive And struggle, with your goods And your persons, in the Cause of God. That is best For you, if ye (but) knew it."
“Anyone refuting that such verses do not call for, and justify, suicide attacks are simply indulging in linguistic gymnastics. They delude themselves.”
Mr Woodford, I think that quote addresses your complaint.
Felix – Comment 10 – work it out for yourself!
Mr Katzen – Comment 11 – don’t worry, we all make mistakes!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
Everyone is making a big deal out of this so-called "torture" done by America - the mass media make it seem as if the USA was taking Joe Blow of the street, detaining him, and then getting "medieval on his behind" (to paraphrase the famous movie line). As far as I know, THREE, count them, 1-2-3, three dirtbags, including Kalid Sheik 9/11 (as I call him), were subject to waterboarding. WOW! Stop the presses! Watching our buffoonish Congress, political candidates, and reading stories in newspapers like the NY Times, one would think that thousands of people, everywhere, are being put on the rack and/or drawn and quartered by the Big Bad Americans! C'mon….Kalid Sheik 9/11 ought to have had his private parts cut off, and it still wouldn't have been enough to punish him for his heinous acts. Making this lowlife gag for mere seconds is NOT torture.
The only thing the Islamist beasts fear is pain - or the threat of it - as of now, they know that if the good old USA captures you, you'll get three squares, a warm bed, TV, a Koran, etc… i.e., anything BUT torture. If we remove the threat that they could be subject to physical abuse, these guys will become even more recalcitrant. Mind you, you don't have to even do anything approaching torture, but just infer that MAYBE you're gonna hurt one of these bastards (instead of giving them the latest copy of "Modern Muslim" and a warm meal), and these guys will cooperate. I have no sympathy for the Islamic lunatics. The rules don't apply to them, so hell yeah, take these people and do to them what you will - it does not bother me one iota. The only thing the Islamist understands is brute force. It's kill or be killed with these "people."
Pity our nation that the current Presidential candidates don't seem to want to broach this topic, or are just too stupid to understand it.
McCain/Obama/Clinton want a love-fest with the terrorists, instead of confronting them. It's bad enough that the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his mind; will the next US President be as equally feckless?
Comment by infidelandproud | February 11, 2008
Mickey G - Comment 7 - My apologies for not addressing your very perceptive Comment. I agree that some interrogators may end up with useless information. Effective interrogators however are very much like good attorneys subjecting a witness to cross-examination. They may not know the answer to the question they are posing, but they prepare the ground by posing questions they do know the answers to. That way, the ‘witness’ comes to realize the futility of giving the wrong answer. The ‘witness’ however will never know which question is the one the interrogator wants – so in the end, he simply spills the beans.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
Felix,
Your comment 10 and my comments 1 and 11, addressed by Mr. McMillan in the rant that is comment 14, inquire as to how Mr. McMillan knows what he claims to know. His response thus far has been evasiveness. My guess is that he is being deliberately vague so that we will wonder if he was a victim of torture, and hence regard him with awe. If I were as confident about my guesses as he is about his guesses, I would say flatly that "I know" he was never tortured, and that his purported expertise in the matter is a product of his very high opinion of himself (see the description of his book on his website, which declares the book a new educational requirement for students of philosophy).
You proposed two possibilities in comment 10:
1. Mr. McMillan has been tortured; or
2. Mr. McMillan has tortured.
I propose a third possibility:
3. Mr. McMillan is the smartest man who ever lived. To find out if John McCain was tortured, Mr. McMillan had only to consult his own intellect. Heck, he didn't even have to consult the United States Code in order to find out what torture is.
Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure he will correct me.
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Oh dear Mr Katzen.
In seems that you are so concerned with me that you are ‘torturing’ yourself.
My book may well be good medicine to resist the ‘torture’. In the interests of ‘humanity’, I’d even offer to send you a complimentary copy if I didn’t think that it would be wasted.
Are you really that unconcerned about what is going on in the world that your only response is to hurl insults at others?
If you did buy the book, had some knowledge of our Western philosophical heritage, and a little fortitude, perhaps you could learn something, and at the same time, make an assessment from ‘knowledge – although it seems such things, like experience, may be alien to you.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
"Are you really that unconcerned about what is going on in the world that your only response is to hurl insults at others?"
I'm having difficulty reconciling your righteous indignation with the title and content of your article. If accurately describing the blurb about your book on your website is an insult, what is calling John McCain "pompous" and "sickening?"
I think you owe it to your readers to fortify your claims with facts. You claim about torture, "I do have some knowledge of such things." Your readers would like to judge that for themselves. So…can we have a fact or two?
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Dera Mr Katzen,
No you can not!! Does that make it clear enough??
McCain is running for office of the most powerful man (or woman) on earth. Should we all just zip our lips?
What he does or does not do, what he claims and what he does not claim, will affect every human being on this planet if he is elected.
What I say from my own experience, which happens to cast doubt on his claims to make him worthy of office, is a matter of debate, not ‘interrogation’ by you.
If you have no experience of such matters, then you are free to believe what McCain tells you.
There is still in America, last I heard, something called the Fifth Amendment, and just because you happen to be ‘tortured’ by my article, and inquisitive, that is not going to compel me to waive that ‘right’, or as I would say, FREEDOM.
And as it happens, that position goes to the heart of what I have said, but I expect that will evade your perception.
Finally, you have a very 'revisionist' way of citing your own Comments. Like my book, it may be worth reading them before referring to them.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
Dear Mr Katzen,
One final Comment before I go to bed, if you will permit me - I do not need to consult any Code to find out what “torture” is. But I would be happy to assist in preparing a Code of Conduct to ensure that effective techniques could be applied without offending too much the sensibilities and consciences of the likes of McCain, and apparently, your good self.
You know where to find me if you, or McCain, need me!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
The chances of John McCain surviving the torture sessions vietnam pilots suffered without giving up something worthy is slim to none. Like John Kerry's claim to heroism on the river boats it will be open to dispute no matter what happens. No matter what, the man is creepy and a manchurian candidate. Better the GOP gets B slapped than elect that lying creep for Prez. Katzen and other McCain supporters are naive to believe otherwise.
Comment by Dean | February 11, 2008
Mr. McMillan,
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in comment 20. But let the record show that when asked about how you know so much about torture, you invoked your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. I wonder if that has ever happened on an IC message board before today.
It is a little strange for you to be so upset about my questions, since you were one who brought up your special knowledge.
As for comment 21, Senator McCain and I appreciate your willingness to offer your considerable skills in crafting a Code of Conduct, but I think we would prefer someone with more advanced knowledge. Such as, say, familiarity with what the current law actually is.
Good night, my friend.
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Katzen and I just had this very same argument at the following IC article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/06/i-am-a-rino/#comments
The U.S. code, by Katzen's own interpretation, would generally not consider waterboarding "torture" IF the term "prolonged" is to be used a qualifier for "mental or physical" "suffering". I don't 30 seconds would qualify as "prolonged" by anyone's standard.
In regards to McCain: He was subjected to generally poor treatment in addition to what I would describe as "torture", by all accounts. He didn't spend his entire time as a POW in the "Hanoi Hilton". And he did, in fact, "break" and sign the confession that his torturers wanted him to sign. Torture worked. He did what they wanted him to do.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 11, 2008
Katzen,
As long as you're distributing knowledge about what the current law actually is, how does the US Code you've cited, that may or may not even prohibit an activity like waterboarding in the first place, apply to military personnel outside of the United States in dealing with non-U.S. citizens who are non-uniformed combatants or illegal fighters in a foreign war? USC Title 18, S3240:
***As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.***
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 11, 2008
Typo: that should read: USC, Title 18, S2340. Not S3240.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 11, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
Regarding the question you pose in comment 25, I refer you to 18 USC s. 2340A (same chapter and section):
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
The fact that it occurs outside the United States, then, brings it squarely within the statute. None of the other factors you mentioned are relevant. I should have cited to this part of law as well–my apologies.
Regarding the question you pose in comment 24, two quick points:
1. The "prolonged" requirement applies only to mental pain and suffering, not to physical suffering.
2. The prolonged mental harm required for mental pain and suffering includes any psychological trauma the victim might suffer for a time after the experience.
I suppose I may have gone too far in asserting that waterboarding is necessarily, in every conceivable circumstance and manner, torture. To make fair judgment, I would need to know the specifics–like for any other alleged crime. I cheerily withdraw anything I've said to the contrary that suggests I think otherwise.
You make an excellent point about McCain, by the way. I had assumed that Mr. McMillan was correct in saying that McCain claimed he did not break under torture. Then, just before I saw your post, I saw this: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml
To quote McCain: "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." In other words, he broke. He denies giving away anything more than this. McMillan doubts that McCain is telling the truth. I asked why McMillan so doubts. McMillan got huffy and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
I have a post hung up in the filter responding to your questions. Read that one first.
In that post, I talk about whether waterboarding is "always" torture. Let me add this qualifier to what I say in that post: It is difficult for me to imagine a way of effectively waterboarding someone that would not be torture.
Comment by Katzen | February 11, 2008
Katzen,
What you've cited defines to whom the statute may be applied, and the jurisdiction of the statute. It states who may not commit acts of torture, as defined in the previous section. What I cited was the definition of what "torture" is, by the statute. "Torture" is defined as:
"torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control"
Are military personnel acting "under the color of law" when they interrogate foreign non-uniformed combatants or illegal fighters during wartime? And is waterboarding "intended to inflict severe physical or mental paint or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)"? One could probably make a case either way. It certainly isn't clear-cut under that statute.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2008
Does having to listen to Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office for the next 4 years constitute "torture"? Specifically, “severe mental pain or suffering” [meaning] the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—"
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 12, 2008
Mr. McMillan - As I said, I was unaware of any imminent threats that had been averted through the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (or torture, if you prefer). I'm very curious about the case you cite of an officer threatening to shoot an Iraqi and gaining critical information - I've not heard of it before but you provided no way for me to research it. Do you have a link to point out? What other cases can you think of that should be brought to my attention?
I also have to bring up your puzzling inattention to the case of Dilawar the taxi driver - an innocent prisoner (turned in by an Afghan warlord to divert suspicion from himself) who was beaten to death by U.S. troops. If there aren't clear restrictions on torture, human beings - and our troops are in fact human, however admirable - will do horrible things. You point out that any human being can be broken eventually. It's equally true that any human being is capable of terrible acts under the wrong circumstances. Putting one human in a position of absolute power over others is a guarantee that atrocities will be committed.
Perhaps it's true that the "injuries sustained by Spc Baker are common on any Saturday night in most any country in the Western World". So what? We prosecute those who inflict such injuries, do we not?
Then there's the other problem with torture - we are not just battling against terrorists. We are also battling against their ideology, and we can't succeed at that more important goal without a clear distinction between us and them. The British learned this in Ireland. The IRA's popularity waxed and waned in proportion to how brutal and extralegal the British response was. (It's also worth noting that in general the British-occupied areas of Iraq tended to have markedly less violence than the American-managed ones.) Torture might win battles; but it can lose wars, when public opinion is one of the war's targets.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 12, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
I believe courts generally interpret "under color of law" to mean "with the appearance of lawful authority." I would be very surprised if the military or any other agency of the U.S. Government were exempt from that. And nothing law indicates that it only protects good, innocent people from torture.
"Intent" and "specific intent" are funny things in the law, and they usually mean the same thing. If I shoot you in the head, I won't be able to get away with saying that my "specific intent" was to make your skull bleed rather than to kill you. I would usually be held to have had "specific intent" to accomplish results that I clearly should foreseen. Here, I'm borrowing from that DOJ OLP memo I referred to in our other discussion.
As for the pain and suffering, as I said, I think psychological trauma that lasts for any notable period of time would count. I also think a drowning sensation–the feeling that you are being killed–would count as severe physical suffering (though probably not "pain").
Another point worth considering: What happens if the detainee does not immediately break? The waterboarding gets more intense. Does it, in your view, become torture at some point? Doesn't the fact that it is nearly impossible for a person determined to be silent to maintain his will indicate that the suffering inflicted is "severe?" If it were only "mild" or "slight," I think we would have a harder time saying that it "works."
Phil,
Torture refers only to acts committed by "a person." "Persons" have real emotions. So, clearly, the answer to your question is no.
Comment by Katzen | February 12, 2008
Katzen,
In wartime situations, when dealing with terrorists and enemy combatants not recognized under rules of warfare, who are not US nationals, are interrogators acting "with the appearance of lawful authority"? What is the definition of "lawful authority" in the statute (I couldn't find it defined)? Knowing what "lawful authority" is would make it easier to determine when one is acting with the appearance of it.
Last I checked, no interrogators were blowing people's heads off in detention camps, so I'm not sure what your little rhetorical rant was about. Unless you're equating the specific intent to simulate the effect of drowning in order to retrieve information during an interrogation to the specific intent to blow someone's brains out. Not the first time you've done so, but still a little on the hyperbolic side.
"As for the pain and suffering, as I said, I think psychological trauma that lasts for any notable period of time would count. I also think a drowning sensation–the feeling that you are being killed–would count as severe physical suffering (though probably not “pain”)."
So in essence, you're saying anyone leaving an interrogation with, say, clinical depression, or an anxiety disorder, or insomnia, or bad dreams, or chronic bedwetting has been "tortured"? Do you have any evidence that such effects typically occur among people who have been waterboarded? And if they do, that it is directly attributable to the waterboarding (some people have psychological problems like that due to the rigors and stresses of international terrorist planning and management, or sometimes just from that darn dry air out there in the desert)? It's used in the course of our military and intelligence training. Do those personnel have grounds for legal action against our department of defense? I'm not being entirely facetious here. I'd really like to know how many jackpot lawsuits may be in the works by servicemen who were "tortured" at the hands of their own government.
"Another point worth considering: What happens if the detainee does not immediately break? The waterboarding gets more intense. Does it, in your view, become torture at some point? Doesn’t the fact that it is nearly impossible for a person determined to be silent to maintain his will indicate that the suffering inflicted is “severe?” If it were only “mild” or “slight,” I think we would have a harder time saying that it “works.”"
As far as the government will let on (and we shouldn't, of course, discount the strong possibility that waterboarding happens during every interrogation of every innocent Iraqi pizza guy and goes unreported, so take the evil government's word for what it's worth), nobody's ever had to be waterboarded for more than 35 seconds. So the point is theoretical. I suppose, theoretically, that the point where the person actually drowns would be "torture". Or the point where the person is forced to undergo waterboarding repeatedly in order to coerce a false, propaganda confession out of them. You know my opinion on the matter from our previous discussion though. I don't care when the line into "torture" has been crossed when dealing with terrorists or combatants during wartime. I support torturing people during wartime in ways so despicable they can't even be shown on TV, or talked about in polite company. Even going so far as to point at men's penises and laugh at them (take a moment to catch your breath). War is an utterly inhumane and barbaric activity, and so inhumane barbarians should be employed to carry it out. I also support shooting people on the suspicion that they are going to blow you up or shoot you in the face before they actually blow you up or shoot you in the face. And dropping bombs in places where civilians will get killed. And blowing up mosques when they're full of terrorists. And killing women and kids when armed maniacs use them as shields. So the "human rights" and tear-jerking emotionalism bit doesn't really win any points with me. We have completely different underlying assumptions on the matter. It doesn't break my heart that one of the people responsible for master-minding a terrorist attack against American civilians got water poured down his nose. It wouldn't have bothered me if he was "mock executed" by any other means. Or if he was beaten, cut, shot, poisoned, burned, made to have bad dreams, denied access to a Koran, listened to music he didn't like, or had his penis pointed to. Consequently, no amount of argumentation will ever convince me that waterboarding should be illegal, that it is immoral, or that it is "torture". Just like nothing I can say will change your delicate sensibilities.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2008
Mr. Mulligan - Is there any practical difference between how we carry out war and how other countries do or have? Should there be?
I'm minded of the words of Robert Heinlein in his book "Starship Troopers" [1]: "If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?… Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it would be just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force."
What specifically is wrong with the above idea, if anything, in your estimation?
[1] As is all-too-common these days, the movie bore almost no relation to the book. I don't agree with everything in the book, either, but it's certainly thought-provoking.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 12, 2008
30. Does having to listen to Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office for the next 4 years constitute “torture”?
Well, I don't like her either, but actually, it "constitutes" democracy.
Comment by felix | February 12, 2008
Mr. McMillan,
Did you actually do research and provide the evidence in your book to support the thesis that you offer here? I ask this because you don't seem to be offering any evidence to support your claims when you respond to those who question your assertions about torture. I am assuming that you are not just here to try to sell your book.
Comment by freelunch | February 12, 2008
BTW - to those people who approve of torture: Do you enjoy the prospect of Barack or Hillary having the powers that the Bush administration has claimed for itself?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 12, 2008
Consequently, no amount of argumentation will ever convince me that waterboarding should be illegal, that it is immoral, or that it is “torture”.
About 90% of the responders to this topic support water boarding as legal and moral. (Well over 90% if you judge by space taken up instead of number of responders.) That seems fairly straight forward. But what is puzzling to me is the amount of space taken up defining it as 'not torture'. If you support waterboarding as legal, right, necessary, effective and moral, what difference does it make what you call it? It seems kind of ironic to me that conservatives have adopted the "it's a fetus not an unborn child" platform.
Comment by felix | February 12, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
1. Black's Law Dictionary defines "color of law" as "The appearance or semblance of a legal right" and goes on to say that the term usually "implies a misue of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state. State action is synonymous with color of law in the context of federal cvili-rights statutes or criminal laws." I think that pretty unambiguously covers the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
2. I wasn't comparing waterboarding and murder. I was explaining what "specific intent" means, using an example other than waterboarding. I didn't have to use murder. I could have used speeding: Someone who floors the gas pedal has "specific intent" to increase his speed, whether or not he says that his real intent was only to see how close the floor he could make the pedal go.
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html
"To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years."
You ask: "So in essence, you’re saying anyone leaving an interrogation with, say, clinical depression, or an anxiety disorder, or insomnia, or bad dreams, or chronic bedwetting has been “tortured”?"
Those certainly would classify as harms within the scope of the statute. Assuming all the other elements are met, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
You ask whether U.S. military who have been waterboarded as part of their training can claim protection under the statute. I don't know. There might be some other law permitting things that would otherwise be torture in that context. "Specific intent" might exclude waterboarding done obviously for the purpose of preparing someone for his employment. Soldiers may not be in "custody or physical control" of the military within the meaning of the statute. "Color of law" arguably does not cover acts between persons of the same governmental organization (i.e. employer treatment of employees). But if none of these caveats or similar ones apply, then yes–it is possible that that waterboarding is illegal even when done to U.S. troops in the course of their training. I simply don't know enough to give a complete answer.
4. Regarding your support for torture, I don't think our disagreement is attributable to lack of facts on the part of either of us. We simply have a moral disagreement.
5. You write: "As far as the government will let on (and we shouldn’t, of course, discount the strong possibility that waterboarding happens during every interrogation of every innocent Iraqi pizza guy and goes unreported, so take the evil government’s word for what it’s worth), nobody’s ever had to be waterboarded for more than 35 seconds. So the point is theoretical. I suppose, theoretically, that the point where the person actually drowns would be “torture”. Or the point where the person is forced to undergo waterboarding repeatedly in order to coerce a false, propaganda confession out of them."
You suggest two instances in which waterboarding would clearly be torture. One of them is when it actually kills somebody. But death is clearly not the only harm sufficient to bring an act within the scope of the statute. The other is when waterboarding is used to produce a false confession. I don't see anything in the statute that distinguishes between acts designed to get a person to confess falsely and those designd to get a person to confess truthfully.
Comment by Katzen | February 12, 2008
Felix: Ask the people of Michigan who weren't allowed to vote for anyone but Hillary in the primary because all the other Democrat candidates obeyed the ruling of the DNC and withdrew from the ballot, only to now see Hillary pressure to have the primary results now count (and all the delegates assigned to her), if this is "democracy".
I think Katzen actually answered the question correctly.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 12, 2008
While many of you seem to have your panties in a knot over these issues please consider that many of the acts you call torture were exceeded by fraternity hazing of pledges in days gone by. In fact most of the Abu Gharib "torture" was actually funny. Get a life!
Waterboarding has been around a long time. Somehow it seems less of an issue than beheading, mutilation, finger removal, thumb screws, racking, and all the other acoutrements of real torture.
The discussion has somewhat drifted off the track of the article which suggests that John McCain is a less than stellar candidate for the presidency.
Solutions? Local activity to select and elect conservative candidates to everything from the school board to state positions. Similar efforts to elect at the national level. And, instead of a vote for John McCain, write me in or my favorite write in Newt Gingrich.
Comment by Mickey G | February 12, 2008
Mickey G - I've not run into anyone who says "waterboarding isn't torture" or even "it's no worse than hazing"… and then volunteers to prove it by undergoing it themselves. Just saying…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 12, 2008
Raymond,
You said: " Is there any practical difference between how we carry out war and how other countries do or have? Should there be?
I’m minded of the words of Robert Heinlein in his book “Starship Troopers” [1]: “If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?… Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it would be just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force.”
What specifically is wrong with the above idea, if anything, in your estimation?"
Nothing is wrong with that idea to me. Does the controlled application of violence preclude the use of torture, infrastructure bombing, incidental killing of civilians, etc? No. Those are all very much controlled uses of violence. I didn't suggest indiscriminately H-bombing the entire middle east, but if we're going to fight a "war", if we're actually going to call it that, then we should have any and every resource under the sun available to us to do so. I don't think it's entirely logical to try and legislate some higher plane of morality into an activity whereby the intention is to kill and maim the opposing side in order to "support your government's decision by force". I'm reminded of the line in Apocalypse Now where Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz muses, "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write 'f***' on their airplanes because it's obscene". Marquess of Queensbury rules are fantastic when the intention is for two guys to smack each other around a little bit in front of spectators and then walk out of the ring when they're all done. Krav Maga is more effective when you want to kill somebody as quickly as possible before he does the same to you. Which situation do you think more accurately reflects real-world war scenarios? Heck, if we wanted to really be civilized about it, we could go back to lining up in formal attire a few yards away from each other and opening fire until one side gives up.
Katzen,
You said: "Black’s Law Dictionary defines “color of law” as “The appearance or semblance of a legal right” and goes on to say that the term usually “implies a misue of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state. State action is synonymous with color of law in the context of federal cvili-rights statutes or criminal laws.” I think that pretty unambiguously covers the U.S. military and intelligence agencies."
That would make perfect sense if this were happening to American civilians under the authority of the "state". We're talking about wartime activities against terrorists and unlawful combatants though. Authority is obtained and applied differently under such circumstances. Waterboarding a detained combatant during wartime doesn't really imply that the activity is being done solely because the interrogator is "clothed with the authority of the state". An interrogator in that circumstance has obtained authority over the detainee not because the state has granted it to him, but because the detainee has been stripped of his ability to resist being coercively placed under authority. The context is a lot different. I don't know that it would be legally interpreted that way, but it is.
"2. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and murder. I was explaining what “specific intent” means, using an example other than waterboarding. I didn’t have to use murder. I could have used speeding: Someone who floors the gas pedal has “specific intent” to increase his speed, whether or not he says that his real intent was only to see how close the floor he could make the pedal go."
Okay. I still don't really understand what the point was. I think we're all in agreement that the "specific intent" of waterboarding is to make someone feel like they are drowning for the purpose of extracting information from them.
"3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html
“To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding’s effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.”"
Waterboarding is not real drowning. Real drowning is: "death as caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body's absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. The primary cause of death is hypoxia and acidosis leading to cardiac arrest." That doesn't happen to people who are waterboarded. As to the "severe psychological trauma", I was hoping to get something a little more concrete than an uncited reference to "those who have studied the effects of waterboarding". Were those studies conducted on people who were waterboarded once for 35 seconds? Or on those who were waterboarded repeatedly for more prolonged periods of time, such as in WWII? Were the results universal? As I've said, I personally don't care anyway. Giving enemy combatants captured during wartime a complex doesn't cost me any sleep at night. But even going by the legal definition, I don't think that what the United States does during interrogations, vis-a-vis waterboarding, can be construed as "torture". At the very least, I think a case could made in defense of it.
In that same article, incidentally, a cited case of waterboarding prosecuted by the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal is summarized as such:
"A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession."
The technique used by the United States military, again, according to their own records (for whatever you think that's worth) does not include buckets or gallons of water, inducing unconsciousness (which would be classified as "near drowning", and which can cause secondary complications including death), and is not repeated 5-6 times in succession. The difference should be obvious.
"4. Regarding your support for torture, I don’t think our disagreement is attributable to lack of facts on the part of either of us. We simply have a moral disagreement."
Absolutely. That's what I meant when I said that we have fundamentally different assumptions that underpin out thinking.
"You suggest two instances in which waterboarding would clearly be torture. One of them is when it actually kills somebody. But death is clearly not the only harm sufficient to bring an act within the scope of the statute. The other is when waterboarding is used to produce a false confession. I don’t see anything in the statute that distinguishes between acts designed to get a person to confess falsely and those designd to get a person to confess truthfully."
I wasn't speaking in terms of the statute. You asked me "Does it, in your view, become torture at some point?". I was simply telling you when, in my view, it would become torture. The example cited from the war crimes tribunal is a good example, since it was applied to the point where death could very well occur, and repeated many times in succession for the purpose of punishing the subject.
Raymond again,
Of course no one (who isn't an idiot) is going to volunteer to be waterboarded. See my comments in the other article I linked to. It isn't supposed to be fun or pleasant. If it were, it would eliminate the entire point of using it. There's lots and lots of activities most normal people wouldn't volunteer for that aren't torture.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2008
The writer is far from intelligent although he is certainly conservative.
He states that we can torture without expecting any increase in torture in the world. I guess we can use chemical and biological and nuclear weapons and not expect that it would lead to more use by others.
You reap what you sow.
We are easily the most powerful secure nation. If we cannot hold to the Geneva convention, who can? How can we even expect others, who are in much more danger than the US.
Comment by christianzog | February 12, 2008
comment #42: ingles:
ok, ingles i'll do that, if you arrainge. I live in FCN, military housing for McGuire AFB, in Wrightstown, NJ.
I am currently a military dependent, disabled. My wife is career USAF.
If you you aren't talking-through-your-hat, (my, that *really* dates me{grin}), and I repudiate your stance, you'll have to admit waterboarding isn't the realthing & shut-up.
How abt it?
Mr. McMillian, you speak, (demeanor & turns-of-phrase) as do people I know who've had training to resist interr. It seems good to me that you refuse to answer katzen — he seens like an ambulence-chaser looking for a target.
Katzen, if that isn't where you are going, sorry — you sure leave that impression. It hurts your presentation of counterpoints.
I've met a lot of old-timers, near or past their 20 who explained McCain's escoriation of the Swift-boat vets by simply asking me hat boils to the paraphrase: "Do you think he wants the people who were POWs w/him to be able to act the same?"
I personally don't knw, but the man lies, then dives behind his deds from over 30yrs past. He uses it as a matador does the cape. He is *SLIMEY*
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | February 12, 2008
comment #43:
uhn, christianzog, have you EVER read the GC?. When you go into the mobility-bucket for the 1st time, you are issued you Gevena Card, wich, along with your identifying stats, has the rel. parts of the GC printed on it– but any one can go read it, (I wish the Supremes had bothered to do so…)
Combatants NOT IN UNIFORM ARE NOT COVERED.
Only by bending out of shape the plain meaning of the language can you cover this scum.
This discussion is what has become of US Jurisprudence by departing from the "common man" standard, (I'm told the Brits call it the "everyman standard"…)
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | February 12, 2008
Martin Musculus,
I wouldn't even have entered into this conversation if Mr. McMillan had not gone out of his way to present himself as having "some knowledge" about torture in order to back up his otherwise baseless claim about John McCain. That's my point: Mr. McMillan's only evidence for his claim is a cryptic reference to his own knowledge. Doesn't it seem somewhat shady that he won't share any more?
I don't think I'm alone in believing that a writer who makes a scandalous charge against someone ought to present evidence sufficient for his readers to make an informed judgment about whether that charge is true or false. Mr. McMillan's obliqueness is the problem, not my "ambulance chasing" (whatever you meant by that).
Mr. Mulligan,
1. The state (United States government) absolutely has granted the interrogator authority over the detainee. From what other source does the interrogator get his authority? I agree that the relationship between the United States military and the detainees at Gitmo is different than the relationship between the Bureau of Prisons and federal prisoners. No matter, the statute plainly applies to acts occuring outside the United States–so of course the detainee comes into custody of the United States by unusual means. I don't see how that has any bearing on whether waterboarding is done "under color of law."
2. If you don't disagree with my analysis of the specific intent portion, forget I brought it up. I was just covering all my bases.
3. The fact that 35 seconds has been the longest time anyone has been waterboarded does not reflect a decision by the United States military to be humane. It reflects the fact that it only took that long for waterboarding to become so unbearable that Khalid Sheik Muhammhed couldn't take it anymore. In other words, in just suggests that the physical suffering became "severe" rather quickly.
4. It wasn't clear to me that you weren't speaking of torture in terms of the statute. But since you bring up the non-statutory use of the word torture, I will say that I think that the normal usage of the word "torture" encompasses waterboarding. To force someone, against his will, to lie on a board with his feet elevated and to cause him to think he is drowning (sometimes by actually drowning him) until he tells you what you want to know–that is as clear a case of non-statutory torture as there ever was.
Comment by Katzen | February 12, 2008
comment:
Of course no one (who isnt an idiot) is going to volunteer to be waterboarded.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
*I* take exception to that comment. I am far from being an idiot. *I am* tired of people tarring our country and our troops as joyful torturers. I believe that at some point a stand must be taken. I cannot go fight, (the war isn't wheelchair accessible{grin}), but I can throw this non-sense of waterboarding being torture back in their faces. I also really & truely believe that no lasting harm will come from this. So yes, I am willing to be waterboarded, in front of these critics, to shame them into being adults and not whining over the difficult choices.
These people remind me of arguments I became enbroiled in during college with people who were not only vegitarians themselves, but didn't want other eating meat either. There arguments often distilled to: "if you had to kill it you couldn't eat it because animals are so cute…". I grew up on a working farm and had slaughtered for food animals of every kind. While I do agree that animals are cute, I still slaughtered & ate them. WhenI related my experiences on the farm w/them, it often tokk the wind from their sails.
I see this as the same thing. The main dismissal of cogent argumets seems to boil down to: "if its so safe why don't you let them do it to you!" And I say: ok, but then move on to fact-based arguments and stop playing on emotion.
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | February 12, 2008
Who honestly cares what makes you sick? I know, I don't.
John McCain doesn't lockstep with you neocons, so you'd rather have a liberal in office than a moderate conservative? You make me sick.
Comment by ConservativePopulist | February 12, 2008
Uh, Conservative Populist, you do realize that a "neocon" is… a liberal conservative? Doesn't make much sense for you to be disparaging those damned neocons and then in the same breath supporting someone who is often described as one. If you're going to throw your two sentence opinion into the ring, at least try to keep up.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 13, 2008
Comment 48:
Who honestly cares what makes you sick? I know, I dont. …
Comment by ConservativePopulist | February 12, 2008
Why, obviously *you* do. Why else stop to read it, and further, take whatever time is required to comment on it.
Hey, Ingles! Lets arrainge to exchange email addresses so as to get this thing done…
Everyone: I've only been able to use my PDA for web access the last few days, please excuse the strange spelling & randonly dropped characters.
- musculus
ps.: my wife pointed out that even w/the info I've provided there might be some who question my seriousness & location. I can, (if someone can explain how-to,) post a photo of McGuire's Falcon Courts North, (FCN, one of the residential areas of the base - the one we live in…) — though I won't post of our house. My offer was made in all seriousness. - m
Comment by martin.musculus | February 13, 2008
Raymond,
Please read my first entry in this discussion then decide if you want me to volunteer for something already done!
Comment by Mickey G | February 13, 2008
Mr. Musculus - I live in the Detroit area. We've got four kids and my wife runs a bakery, so I'm not terribly mobile - can you come this way? There're a few other considerations - I don't want to get prosecuted or sued if something goes wrong. We'd need some solid legal paperwork and I'd like to make sure that there's no medical issues - no latent cardiac, respiratory, or neurological problems. (I don't want anyone dying or even getting hurt just to prove a point.) I also don't have a lot of disposable income - I might get a couple hundred for my birthday in July but I've blown through my xmas money by now.
Maybe we can get someone like Rush Limbaugh, who's also compared waterboarding to hazing, to sponsor it? Would you have any objections to posting a video of it on Youtube (or a sponsor's website)?
We'd also have to figure out the procedure. Since it's no worse than hazing, maybe we can see if you can say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?" a couple of times? Or just see if we can get a secret out of you? You'll be going in knowing that we're not actually trying to hurt you, but I still think we can figure out a useful demonstration.
Just click on my name below this post to get to my website, and my email address is on the 'Contact' page.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 13, 2008
Mr. Mulligan - certain ends preclude certain means. We're not merely fighting terrorists - we're supposed to be fighting terrorism. As I noted before, keeping the moral high ground in an ideological battle is critical.
Sure, the terrorists are brutal, uncivilized thugs who kill civilians indiscriminately. They also torture people. But just as we don't kill civilians indiscriminately in response - indeed, we try to avoid killing civilians insofar as possible - neither should we torture as a matter of course.
There are several good reasons for this. First off, we know that innocent people have been picked up by even our own troops, and the vast majority of 'detainees' were not picked up by our troops; they were turned in for reward money and such. There's real doubt about the status of such people and they should - as Article 5 very unambiguously states - preemptively get protection until a tribunal has determined that they don't qualify for protection.
But even at that point, torture shouldn't be the default, go-to tactic. It should be used carefully and judiciously, when needed, because there needs to be a clear difference between us and them - not just in degree, but in kind. And I think our administration and our soldiers are capable of living up to that standard. (It's not really clear to me that the current administration has, in fact, done so. They've shown a rather surprising disregard for the law at home; I'm dubious about their behavior when oversight's difficult.)
The treatment of detainees has so far been managed with stupefying incompetence in many cases. Abu Ghraib, Dilawar, Spc. Baker - without clear limits people in guard positions will do brutal things. This is human nature - look up the Stanford prison experiment. The U.S. treats prisoners better than a Soviet gulag or Saddam's torture chambers, sure - but that's an awfully low bar to get over. Simply for propaganda purposes, again we should be different in kind and not just degree. I don't think the majority of our troops are 'joyful torturers', as Mr. Musculus put it - but even fine, upstanding people can do terrrible things in the wrong circumstances and I have seen very little indication that that truth is being taken into account.
Note: in combat things are different. When the bullets are flying survival and accomplishing the objective are the priorities, and everything else drops far behind. But the Geneva Conventions are for when you're not in combat.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 13, 2008
…not my “ambulance chasing” (whatever you meant by that). …Comment by Katzen | February 12, 2008
Katzen:
Sorry I didn't choose my words/structure my comments in a understandable fashion — working on a PDA with constant interruptions interferes with my concentration.
What I said/meant to say, was that your tone in the referred to posts is somewhat reminiscent of a lawyer who is constantly on the prowl for a target. He chases ambulances on the off-chance any injury, no matter how small and insignificant - even a hangnail - with the prospect of a big settlement will convince a person to litigate.
More specifically, in your case, your tone bends the ear in a way that paints a mental image of someone looking to bring a suit against McMillian for:
1) violating his non-disclosure concerning security clearances,
2) get him to admit having employed aggressive interrogation techniques in order to include him as a defendant in a class action against any military or ex-military personnel who performed said action.
And yes, I know that #s 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive conditions…
BTW: I assure everyone that such a class action is coming soon if it hasn't already been filed… so McMillian's actions aren't so far fetched.
While I would never class you with the waste-products who would actually do something like that; I'm a trusting-marshmallow-sort-of-guy, (…just ask my wife), {grin}. Other people operate on another level of personal security and extension of trust.
I hope this clarifies.
- musculus.
Comment by martin.musculus | February 13, 2008
musculus,
Sorry if my tone suggested that. For the record, I don't suspect Mr. McMillan of having employed "aggressive interrogation techniques." In fact, I don't suspect him of having any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Which is why his article and subsequent comments seem so odd to me.
Comment by Katzen | February 13, 2008
Speaking of tone, one of the problems with torture is the type of people it attracts; people with unresolved personal problems. This animus is evident in the monograph that started this conversation, and has been progressively amplified by contagion throughout subsequent comments.
Comment by felix | February 13, 2008
Felix,
Well, as far as I've been able to observe, the only people w/o unresolved personal problems are those who are dead, and those so disconnected from reality that they see no error in themselves.
Are you either one of those, or are you divine?
{so — hard — to — write –through — my — grin…grin… there!}
BTW: Felix, are you from Belize?
You sound exactly like m best friend whom I haven't seen (but have been trying to find) in 20yrs.
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | February 13, 2008
I am not originally from Belize, but did spend part of my life there.
Comment by felix | February 13, 2008
Katzen,
I haven't followed this discussion for the past several days for lack of time. I'll just address your post really quickly and then be done with this discussion, because I think we've pretty much exhausted the subject matter.
You said: "1. The state (United States government) absolutely has granted the interrogator authority over the detainee. *From what other source does the interrogator get his authority?* I agree that the relationship between the United States military and the detainees at Gitmo is different than the relationship between the Bureau of Prisons and federal prisoners. No matter, the statute plainly applies to acts occuring outside the United States–so of course the detainee comes into custody of the United States by unusual means. I don’t see how that has any bearing on whether waterboarding is done “under color of law.”"
Is the interrogator acting in the capacity of an enforcer of the law against the prisoner? Is he using the power of the law, or the authority given to him by the law, for the purpose of "torturing" the detainee ("torture" being used under the assumption that waterboarding fit the definition as per the statute, which is certainly debatable)? Maybe. Maybe not. If the detainee does not recognize the law or the authority given to the interrogator and the interrogator's authority is established upon nothing more than coercion and the inability of the detainee to resist, then the source of the authority seems to be sheer dominance, and not so much related to legal authorization. Like I said before, I don't know if a legal case could be made that a military interrogator in the field isn't acting "under the color of law", but the context is radically different.
"2. If you don’t disagree with my analysis of the specific intent portion, forget I brought it up. I was just covering all my bases."
I don't know what would have given you the impression that I thought the "specific intent" of waterboarding during an interrogation was anything other than to extract information from the person being waterboarded by subjecting them to simulated drowning. I'm glad we're all settled on that though.
"3. The fact that 35 seconds has been the longest time anyone has been waterboarded does not reflect a decision by the United States military to be humane. It reflects the fact that it only took that long for waterboarding to become so unbearable that Khalid Sheik Muhammhed couldn’t take it anymore. In other words, in just suggests that the physical suffering became “severe” rather quickly."
Okay. So 35 seconds is "prolonged" as long as that's all the time it takes for someone to crack? There were two qualifying conditions: severe AND prolonged. Remember? If the United States had no intention of acting humanely and was interested simply in "torturing" people, why would they stop at 35 seconds when Khalid Sheik Muhammad broke? Why not go until he passed out, revive him, and then do it again, like the example from the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal? Or, if we were to accept the argument that waterboarding only results in false information, how did they know he *really* broke after 35 seconds? Why not keep at it?
"4. It wasn’t clear to me that you weren’t speaking of torture in terms of the statute. But since you bring up the non-statutory use of the word torture, I will say that I think that the normal usage of the word “torture” encompasses waterboarding. To force someone, against his will, to lie on a board with his feet elevated and to cause him to think he is drowning (sometimes by actually drowning him) until he tells you what you want to know–that is as clear a case of non-statutory torture as there ever was. "
You asked me, "Does it, in your view, become torture at some point?". I quoted that statement before my reply. I assumed, based on the "in your view", that you were asking for my personal opinion, separately from the legalities of the statute that we had been discussing before that point.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 15, 2008