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.
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
Raymond,
Please read my first entry in this discussion then decide if you want me to volunteer for something already done!
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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
I am not originally from Belize, but did spend part of my life there.
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.