The moppets now in charge don't "get it." Singing "Kumbaya" with our enemies on a mountaintop somewhere is their dream.
Their faith in the inherent goodness of humanity is boundless. They believe that if you are really, really nice to Evil incarnate, somehow it will reward you. If only you talk, talk, talk out your earthly differences, laying out your moral scruples to evil-doers, we'll all dance into the golden sunset singing "Kumbaya."
(Loose translation of the old spiritual, "Come on, Lord.")
Or . . . on mountaintop singing (all together now!) lyrics of that revamped 70s Coca-Cola ad jingle:
I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves.
"They" are today's wide-eyed cultural babies. Mostly from the greatly indulged Generation "Y," they are also known as Millennials (born post-1980). Oldsters join in their naïve exuberance. They'd confront evil by being nicey, nicey to all who, given the chance, would kill us. Beheading as the method of choice, but cowardly suicide bombings will do. No way singing "Kumbaya" for these folks. Just chants of "Death to America."
Willingly ignorant about history, they are not much into geography, either. Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein calls them "The Dumbest Generation" in his book of the same title. They are the blank slates, gullible, insular, much into self-centered personal electronics. (My December review of Dr. Bauerlein's book is here, "Jay Leno & The Dumb Milennials.")
Dreamers! Today's baby class hint that fanatical Muslim extremists mean well. After all, theirs is a peaceful religion, isn't it? Little kid-like Americans, thinking (hoping for?) the best, seem not to recognize acts of sheer terrorism stem from an inbred hate, envy and resentment of the freedom-loving peoples and the United States. It's imprinted in terrorists' gene pool. Inbred. Fanned by "torture" memos and Michael Moore's films such as Fahrenheit 911, still packing them in in Mideast cinemas.
Endangering our national security seems a sport, a bloodsport. Editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post, routinely compromise our nation's security. Why such traitorous acts? Scoop of the day? No, it's more than that:
It's politics. Raw partisanship. These are do-good lefties with a clear and present agenda: "Get" those twin devils, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Vilify them. Paint Amerika as mean, in order to redeem it. Editors and reporters today, babies nearly all, seem not to give a rat's ass about protecting our nation from our enemies' next big attack, a death toll to eclipse 9/11 numbers.
Mainstream media rip at the nation's defenses by publishing leaks from fellow travelers — and now, overtly, on Infant-in-Chief Obama's orders. They seek to smear the previous administration. Bring it to heel. (Yes, We Can!) So the campaign of '08 continues. Now it turns wickedly, to prosecute, perhaps, with show trials, as if some two-bit banana republic, Attorney General Eric Holder in the role of Torquemada.
Whoa! Guess who kept the nation safe from further attacks after 9/11? Yes, those same thankless folks, including CIAers, who are now vilified by the country's Left, clamoring for lawyerly prosecution, who kept our nation safe. Some gratitude, eh? So it's upside-down world, in William Butler Yeats's poetic vision:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
Meanwhile, we veterans (me, of Vietnam) are now set up by a left-leaning bureaucracy (Dept. of Homeland Security, of ALL people) as a suspect group of domestic terrorists. Nope, it doesn't get more grossly insulting than that, the ingratitude of the Far Left, toward those who protected their asses physically. Rough men with guns we were.
Babies likely did not serve in the military. They did not put their lives on the line for their country, or on hold to rejoin civilians. DHS dunce Janet Napolitano, one of the kids who doesn't "get it," should hang her head in shame for targeting us GIs.
Babies' newly chosen leader, Kid Obama, is their water-walker, their Messiah. Even while releasing classified secrets to our enemies, now joined by file photos to be used as hate-propaganda and recruitment tools, the rest of the babies support him, say the polls. Lord knows why; it is a phenomenon that transcends logic. But then, he is the whirling dervish. Such activity suggests accomplishment. It is the opposite.
Millennials and their clueless kinfolk exist in a see-no-evil, cocoon-like world of I-pods, Facebook and MySpace. Juveniles forever? Probably never met a payroll. Never served in the military, same as cool-to-the-military Obama. They give no thought to geopolitics or to winning a war – oops, a "foreign contingency." (Orwell rules!)
Their geopolitical dream sequence lies in that 70's Coke ad jingle:
I'd like to see the world for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills,
Ah, peace throughout the land.
If only our sworn, bloodthirsty enemies could be made to understand of Good Intentions, there'd be "peace throughout the land." Of course, the pathway to hell is a largely uncharted destination. (See also, Munich.)
A few examples of the American infants' ethos:
– They seek safety and "security" from failed decision-making. Can't pay the mortgage on that overpriced McMansion? Easy. Turn to Uncle Sam. Company going belly up? Bailout. Can't afford (!) health insurance? Turn up sick at an ER, same as illegal immigrants. Taxpayers will pay, the suckers.
– They vote charlatans and hypocrites into public office. Falling for clever campaign slogans, often couched in terms of envious class warfare, dim-witted Millennials and their ideological kin fall for promises. Politicians play them like a symphony orchestra. Media joins in the chorus.
– They take solace in the comforting verbs, "insure" and "ensure." They seek "guarantees." Big Government is their "Pie In the Sky Insurance Company." When they don't get their way, or recompense, they blame the nearest capitalist villain — banks, preferably biggies, and Big Oil, except when prices drop below $2 per gallon. But their biggest bogeyman is "Wall Street," also the whipping boy of their leader, the infant-in-chief.
– They believe in entitlements. Someone else will pay. They demand, insist on, "guarantees" their grandfathers never imagined, battling unspeakable evil in World War II. And their fathers, fighting for liberty in Korea, in South Vietnam, in Iraq, now in Afghanistan, did not demand "guarantees" for protecting our liberties. It was a duty, you see, to honor our country. Semper fi!
– They do not realize consequences of voting in clowns. Maybe it is socialism they seek, a Big Nanny to take care of them, cradle to grave. Voting to open up the public treasury, to get their way, sounds way "cool." ("Awesome?") Works until the wealth runs out.
Will the grown-ups step forward? Will a dose of reality, perhaps the next terrorists' attack, shake them out of their booties? Will sober, realistic minds, not out to politicize everything, not to prosecute predecessors, come to the rescue of our country, verily, verily, to save this republic from the folly of the babies now in charge?
Stay tuned. A bumpy road ahead promises to be a helluva trip.
I keep hearing about these naive, spineless Americans (usually Leftists, now apparently 'Generation Y') who have boundless faith in human goodness, and believe that if you are just really nice to evil, evil will be nice back.
I'd sure like to give those people a firm lecture. But I can't seem to find them. I think they might be mostly imaginary.
I certainly don't notice any of them in the Obama administration, which seems fairly hawkish, really. I think the writer, like the entire right-wing echo chamber, has confused "abiding by the rule of law" with "weakness". And confused a willingness to talk to our enemies with a willingness to appease them. It's possible to do one without doing the other.
As far as prosecuting our predecessors, that might be a pretty good idea. The US committed acts of clear torture, illegally, under the Bush Administration. Those crimes should be brought out into the light of day and firmly repudiated. I'm not sure if I favor prosecution–there are pros and cons to that–but I think that the Bush administration did not keep our soldiers safe. It made a dangerous world even more dangerous, by providing splendid recruiting tools for Al Qaeda (Abu Ghraib and torture)and increasing the likelihood that our boys will be tortured if they are captured.
The writer says:
It's politics. Raw partisanship. These are do-good lefties with a clear and present agenda: "Get" those twin devils, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Vilify them. Paint Amerika as mean, in order to redeem it. Editors and reporters today, babies nearly all, seem not to give a rat's ass about protecting our nation from our enemies' next big attack, a death toll to eclipse 9/11 numbers.
This is what it has come to, with the increasingly marginalized and radicalized rump of the right wing. Braying that if you oppose the brutal and counterproductive tactics of Bush/Cheney, you must not care about protecting America. You must be some kind of weakling or even traitor. Who exactly are the 'babies' again?
Oz
I'm somewhat new to this website and have been reading several of the comment sections. Speaking of echo chambers, this phrase seems to pop up in more than one location
-like the entire right-wing echo chamber
-which allows people to cocccn themselves into little echo chambers
Which echo chamber did this come from?
"…right wing echo chamber…" So of course Ozzie_M comes along and mindlessly echos left wing talking points.
Torture the terrorist b*st*rds.
Glad to hear you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that 'torture' is what we have been doing to detainees.
I'm curious, though. In your enthusiasm for torturing any alleged 'terrorist bastards', do you recognize any limits? Where would you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptably brutal torture? Are there any limits at all to what you would allow our government to do to detainees?
Also, are you in favor of formally withdrawing from the Geneva Convention? Just curious.
Oz
What "acts of clear torture" are you referring to?
Waterboarding? Which causes physical discomfort but not physical harm.
Torture is now anything that causes our enemies to feel physical discomfort?
Torture is breaking bones, amputation, electrocution, cutting, etc., in other words physical harm. The kind that our enemies practice on their enemies and us if given the chance.
Touchy-feely ideas of torture must make our enemies laugh. They must think what a bunch of wussies.
Bush-Cheney, in the feeble mind of liberals, are the Enemy and our enemies are the poor victims, all our enemies want to do is slaughter a few infidels and then Bush-Cheney come along and … and …and … subject them to physical discomfort.
How terrible.
Well, Vinny, it looks like you’ve raised the bar pretty high on what should be considered torture, when you say:
Torture is breaking bones, amputation, electrocution, cutting, etc., in other words physical harm.
May I ask, where did you get that definition of torture? I hope you just didn’t make it up in order to justify our actions (like Bybee and Yoo did). Can you point to any commonly accepted definition of torture to support your contention?
I prefer to use a commonly accepted definition of torture, which is the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was agreed to by the United States under President Reagan, I believe:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
[/I>
Note that 'breaking bones, amputation, cutting, etc' is not required. The US agreed to this definition. It's not just my opinion.
Do you have a problem with that definition? It appears to be accepted by most of the world. Do you have a better definition to provide? Please present it, and explain why it is superior.
It appears that the treatment of the detainees matches quite well. Many people, including prominent conservatives, believe that waterboarding alone satisfies the criteria. But our treatment of the detainees went well beyond simple waterboarding. Details in the next post.
Oz
Hmmm. That should be formatted as follows, sorry.
Well, Vinny, it looks like you’ve raised the bar pretty high on what should be considered torture, when you say:
Torture is breaking bones, amputation, electrocution, cutting, etc., in other words physical harm.
May I ask, where did you get that definition of torture? I hope you just didn’t make it up in order to justify our actions (like Bybee and Yoo did). Can you point to any commonly accepted definition of torture to support your contention?
I prefer to use a commonly accepted definition of torture, which is the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was agreed to by the United States under President Reagan, I believe:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
[/I>
Do you have a problem with that definition? It appears to be accepted by most of the world. Do you have a better definition to provide? Please present it, and explain why it is superior.
It appears that the treatment of the detainees matches quite well. Many people, including prominent conservatives, believe that waterboarding alone satisfies the criteria. But our treatment of the detainees went well beyond simple waterboarding. Details in the next post.
Ah well, close enough. To continue, these are excerpts from the Red Cross report:
During the four months…when not kept in the prolonged stress standing position [with his hands shackled to the ceiling], his ankle shackles were allegedly kept attached by a one meter long chain to a pin fixed in the corner of the room where he was held.
…on several occasions the diaper was not replaced so he had to urinate and defecate on himself while shackled in the prolonged stress standing position. Indeed, in addition to Mr. Bin Attash, three other detainees specified that they had to defecate and urinate on themselves and remain standing in their own bodily fluids.
“Beating by use of a collar”, that “was placed around their necks and used by their interrogators to slam them against the walls.”
Mr. Abu Zubaydah commented that when the collar was first used on him in his third place of detention, he was slammed directly against a hard concrete wall. He was then placed in a tall box for several hours
Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face…
Prolonged nudity…periods ranging from several weeks to several months…
Sleep deprivation…through use of forced stress positions, hosed down with cold water…
Threats of ill-treatment to … his family…
Deprivation…of solid food from 3 days to 1 month…
In each case, the person to be suffocated was strapped to a tilting bed and a cloth was placed over the face…Water was then poured continuously onto the cloth, saturating it and blocking off any air so that the person could not breathe. This form of suffocation induced a feeling of panic and the acute impression that the person was about to die. In at least one case, this was accompanied by incontinence of urine.
In all three cases this caused considerable pain, particularly for Mr. Abu Zubaydah who had undergone surgery just three months earlier…Zubaydah reports: “…the pressure of the straps on my wounds caused severed pain. I vomited…I struggled without success to breathe. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine under stress.”
…during the two weeks he was shackled in the prolonged stress standing position with his hands chained above his head, his artificial leg was sometimes removed by the interrogators to increase the stress and fatigue of the position.
…alleged that…he was threatened with sodomy, and with the arrest and rape of his family.
Conclusions:
…they were subjected to systematic physical and/or psychological ill-treatment. This regime was clearly designed to undermine human dignity and to create a sense of futility by inducing, in many cases, severe physical and mental pain and suffering…
Question, Vinny: If you saw the above done to our boys on an Al Qaeda videotape, would you believe our boys were being tortured? If not, why not?
Oz
It is not only liberals who view the waterboarding and other mistreatment as ‘torture’. Here is a sampling of prominent conservative opinion:
Steven Bradbury, one of the architects of the torture program, admits that we most likely tortured innocent people:
—————————————-
"According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information," Bradbury wrote in his May 30, 2005, memo. "On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.
————————————–
Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist, of the Reagan administration:
—————————————
Torture is bad, and as to whether the procedures outlined in the memos constituted torture, you could do worse than follow the wisdom of John McCain, who says, "Waterboarding is torture, period." This is something he'd know about. Abuse is wrong not only in a specific and immediate sense but in a larger one: It coarsens and damages the nation that does it while undermining its reputation in the world and its trust in itself.
—————————————
America's Pastor, Rick Warren, another conservative::
——————————————-
"Well, and you know what – some of the stuff I saw looking at Guantanamo looks like clearly it was torture. To me, if you torture someone, you put yourself no better than the enemy. We must maintain the moral highground. You have no right to condemn the immoral actions of others if we're doing the same thing. And we should expect that others will torture our people if we're torturing them."
—-Rick Warren
———————————————
From conservative Jonah "Liberal Fascism" Goldberg:
——————————————
"I've always been on the fence about whether waterboarding constituted torture. But if the reports are true that the CIA used it scores of times in a single month on a single prisoner, than I think the threshhold has been met. Debating wether it was worth it still seems open to debate, depending on the facts. But I think waterboarding someone 183 times in a month does amount to torture no matter how you slice it."
———————————————
Conservative Rod Dreher:
—————————————–
"One thing that nobody should ever be permitted to say again, after reading these memos: "The United States didn't torture."
——————————————
Conservative John McCain , torture survivor:
——————————————
"Waterboarding is torture." And it's "unacceptable". And it's a fabulous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
——————————————
Oz
In regards to your inquiry of where I received my definition of torture; It was my own idea of torture based on the result of the alleged torturous act. The result of the alleged act resulting in mere physical or mental discomfort(I'll add the mental component) can not mean that an enemy combatant was subjected to "severe pain or suffering". It must've not been severe enough if it only results in physical or mental discomfort and not physical or mental harm.
So it appears that my definition of torture is in agreement with the UN's definition, in so far as it states that it is "any act by which severe pain or suffering….intentionally inflicted…."
Of course, we can argue on whether Mr. Abu Zubayadah was subjected to "severe" pain or suffering. That's the catch and I'll argue he was not and you will argue that he was. We end up reaching no conclusions.
Any case rulings on the definition of "severe" or any stautory definition of "severe"? Who decides what is "severe"? A jury, judge, panel of (fill in the blank), Amnesty International, the Red Cross? How do we decide if the pain or suffering was "severe"?
As to your Question: If our boys were being chained and strapped like Abu I would think he was imprisoned as a POW. If he was being beaten and waterboarded I say he was being interrogated by the enemy to get information
But if he was having his bones broken, his genitals electrocuted, his body drilled, cut or amputated, I say he was being severely interrogated to get information and therefore being tortured to get it.
Yes there are limits. We should do no more than what the terrorist b*st*rds did to Richard Pearl.
None of the people in the list you gave are conservative, not that it matters.
These terrorist b*st*rds have hated us since the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. Our "torture" of them, or the War on Terror, have not caused or changed their hatred for us.
They are cowards, they are evil, they are barbarians. Take 'em out in the most painful way possible.
Vinny asks:
Any case rulings on the definition of "severe" or any stautory definition of "severe"? Who decides what is "severe"? A jury, judge, panel of (fill in the blank), Amnesty International, the Red Cross? How do we decide if the pain or suffering was "severe"?
Vinny, since you asked, here are some examples of past prosecutions of people that engaged in waterboarding against American soldiers or citizens:
Prosecutions:
—————————
In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning". The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years
This was under the Reagan Justice Department, by the way — Ozzie
————————-
———————-
In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
He was convicted of waterboarding and other offenses and sentenced to 15 years hard labor
———————-
———————-
After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning."
Several were hanged or sentenced to hard labor — Ozzie
———————-
————————-
Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War. On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The article described the practice as "fairly common".The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army
———————–
So, Vinny, how do we decide that something is ‘severe’? And ‘who’ decides?
Obviously, the courts should decide.
By interpreting the relevant statutes and laws, using precedent and skillful legal reasoning.
I agree, the definition of 'severe' in the laws needs to be tightened. Not because it isn't perfectly plain, but just to make sure in the future brutal mistreatments of this type can’t be rationalized/defended with a willful refusal to accept the clear meaning of the language.
But I have no problem letting our American Courts decide if repeated waterboarding, beatings, starving, shackling to the ceiling, stress positions, forced nudity/sexual humiliation, stuffing into little boxes for days, threats of murder, and so on, would be considered ‘severe’ mental or physical suffering. No problem at all. Bring on the Courts, and let them decide. That is what they are there for.
Oz
"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot," – John McCain, October 2007.
Mountain Man says:
None of the people in the list you gave are conservative, not that it matters.
So, none of these people even qualify as 'conservative' for you?
Jonah Goldberg
Rod Dreher
Peggy Noonan
Rick Warren
John McCain
My goodness, the Big Tent is certainly shrinking. I hope the Republican/Libertarian parties will adopt your views (they seems in danger of doing so), because that is the high road to utter irrelevancy.
Oz
Mountain Man prescribes:
They are cowards, they are evil, they are barbarians. Take 'em out in the most painful way possible.
So, evidently you are in favor of a policy in which America may torture its prisoners in a pretty much unlimited fashion, inflicting upon them the 'most pain' possible. Does 'take 'em out' mean you don't mind if we torture them to death?
Such thinking places you beyond the pale of civilization, into the company of the barbarians you hate.
I suspect you don't really mean it, but are simply lobbing bombs because you can think of no effective arguments.
But maybe you *do* mean it…if so, please confirm, so that any and all can judge your credibility and rationality for themselves.
(Sometimes I begin to think that I've stumbled onto a parody site, and I'm the only one that doesn't get the joke. If so, I wish someone would tell me).
Oz
By the way, Vinny, I'm glad that you noticed that severe *mental* suffering is also considered torture by the UNCAT definition (which the US specifically agreed to). I guess you don't think that sexual humiliation, threats of murder, fears of imminent death via waterboarding, total isolation, sensory deprivation, etc–continuing for *years*– count as severe mental harm or suffering.
What, in your view, *would* qualify as severe mental harm or suffering?
And, if the detainees, in a few years, are found to be suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorders (common among torture survivors), would that change your mind at all?
Oz
I am in favor of putting the issue in perspective, Ozzie_M. While you and your fellow leftists agonize over whether a caterpillar in a jail cell is torture, our enemies have no such compunctions. They are out to exterminate us in the most painful, brutal, immoral way possible and you worry about whether those same people are experiencing discomfort?
Who is the joke, sir?
It is very instructive how all of you torture deniers and torture enthusiasts cannot bring yourselves to talk about what was really done to the detainees. Instead, you throw out weak little straw men like 'a caterpillar in a jail cell', or 'splashing water on a man's face'. It seems like reality is threatening to you, so you must compulsively minimize it, and cloak it with derisive falsehoods.
Yes, once again, you point out that terrorists are vicious monsters who want to kill us all. Who has ever denied that? It's so obvious it's not really worth pointing out (unless you just want to change the subject).
The point is not whether terrorists *deserve* torture in a moral sense. It is whether torture is *legal* (it is not) and whether it is *wise policy* (it is not), whether it will further *endanger our boys* (it will) and whether every person we have tortured was really guilty of awful crimes (they probably were not).
As for whether is is only 'Leftists' who agonize over our country's illegal, unwise, and ghastly descent to the level of our enemies, this is why I keep quoting Conservatives, not Liberals.
Here's another one:
———————-
Christopher Tollefsen, theocon:
It is important to be clear, as a moral matter, on what boundaries should be accepted in interrogation of human beings. These sorts of boundaries, regardless of whether they are called torture, or “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, are the ones that matter for our most basic assessment of how agents of the United States Government should comport themselves when questioning terror suspects. The discussion should not, that is to say, begin with questions about how the nature of the terrorists’ crimes, or their status as illegal enemy combatants, affects what may be done. For, if there are forms of treatment forbidden as such for all human beings, then such forms of treatment will be ruled out for terror suspects just as for prisoners of war, and common criminals.
Yet taken en masse, the range of enhanced interrogation techniques looks very much like a strategy for breaking down hardened characters bit by bit; standing naked, shackled, deprived of sleep, kept awake with cold water and loud noise, prevented from cleaning oneself after defecation, and subject to painful (though not physically damaging) slaps and disorienting smacks against a wall—and then subject to repeated waterboarding over a course of weeks or months:
————————–
And here's another, Jim Manzi, writing in NRO
——————————-
Conservative Jim Manzi in NRO
“I stand with Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root and the United States military, and with a 100-year tradition of our nation, against the specific practice of waterboarding captured combatants as strategically ineffective and morally repugnant. It is beneath us; beneath our dignity, and beneath our enlightened self-interest," – Jim Manzi, NRO.
——————————
Oh, and one more conservative columnist (and attorney):
——————————
Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils".
Nevertheless, McCarthy in the same article admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture" and that "[t]here shouldn't be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture".
————————
Oz
Bleeding heart Leftist George Will answers the question I posed earlier in this thread and elsewhere:
"On the other hand, four things are clear. First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture…."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/29/AR2009042904018.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
It was only an aside and not the point of his column, but again, he's only stating what is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by ideology–if Al Qaeda subjected our boys to this treatment, it would be considered torture in America. Just no question about it.
Oz
So Ozzie, you agree that it would have been much more appropriate for the West Coast attach to have been allowed to happen rather than make the poor innocent terrorist planner uncomfortable. Well, Obama won so we can prepare to suffer periodic terrorist attacks like those in Europe.
It's a moral issue, is it? Why should your moral viewpoint prevail?
Quit trying to legislate your morality.
It's a moral issue, is it? Why should your moral viewpoint prevail?
Mountain Man, why on Earth would you attribute to me the exact OPPOSITE of what I said?
I said:
The point is NOT whether terrorists *deserve* torture in a moral sense… (CAPS added)
That's a "NOT". My point is "NOT" about morality.
I said, clearly, that I am focusing on the *Legal and Practical* aspects of torture, not whether it is moral or not.
I'd be happy to give my opinion on the morality of it, because there is obviously a moral dimension, but that was not what I was talking about.
I'm surprised you so misunderstood my plain language.
Oz
Mickey G, I assume you are talking about the Library Tower attack that was allegedly foiled by torturing KSM. Maybe your info is better than mine, but I've had the impression that that story doesn't hold water.
Here's a representative example (not the only one):
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward". A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
(Source: Tim Noah in Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/)
In any case, I know there are oh-so-many variations on the ticking-bomb scenario, and 'wouldn't you torture one terrorist to save a thousand people,' and so on. If those are the best you guys can come up for, as a rationale for turning us into a torturing nation, you are in trouble.
It's still torture, it's still illegal, and I've not seen a scintilla of evidence for the need for America to implement it. Even most interrogators will tell you they've historically been very good at getting info through non-torture, and that torture often gives you false info. If the clock is truly ticking (and I doubt this really happens in real life), being sent on wild goose chases is no help either.
I've said it before, repeatedly–yes, torture might somehow, somewhere yield useful information, and it might even save some lives, but the downsides are more certain, and may well COST lives.
Oz
Every one of your pronouncements contains all sorts of moral judgments. Just because you proclaim that it isn't about morality does not absolve you of your moralizing.
Obama puts it more directly when he refers to "our values" do not permit torture. At least he is honest in referring to the morality of the issue.
Oh, I forgot. There are so many shades of gray, so many nuances to your (tolerant, thoughtful, compassionate) perspective.
And everyone who disagrees with your manifest wisdom is a barbarian. Yup.
Yes, I know that you would like to turn this into an issue of ‘feelings’ and ‘morality’, and so on, because then it’s all very subjective.
Well, no dice. I’m talking about the LAW, and that’s what I’ve been talking about all along.
Torture is illegal, and our treatment of the detainees was torture. It is also against the Geneva Convention, and the UNCAT agreement we signed.
Beyond the law, I’m talking about the adverse practical consequences of becoming a torturing nation. I've enumerated them elsewhere, many times.
I have moral judgments that no doubt show through. So do you. But I've not based my arguments on my personal moral judgments, I've based them on the definition of torture, the laws concerning torture, and the adverse practical consequences of torture.
Torture is illegal. We tortured those people. (Sorry if that is too nuanced for you).
Oz
"We tortured those people." Well now, that is the issue we are debating, isn't it? It isn't a legal issue until it can be shown that the law has been broken. And whether or not they were tortured remains to be seen, our assertion to the contrary.
I know how hopeful you are to prove what an evil nation we are, and how Bush/Cheney is Satan incarnate. Yes, yes, we are the cause of the world's problems, and I know what you leftists think about the nobility of America.
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply, since the terrorists weren't dressed in uniform or fighting under the flag of a nation. Islamofascists have hated us for centuries, and if we do everything they want, they will still hate us. The opinion of the world community is irrelevant, they want us to become socialists like them.
So who exactly is being hurt, except for a bunch of terrorist b*st*rds who hide behind women and children and kill people solely because they are infidels?
Well now, that is the issue we are debating, isn't it?
Well, that's the issue *I've* been debating, Mountain Man. I'm not sure what you guys are debating, or even WHO you're debating.
Evidently *you* are debating whether we are an 'evil nation', and how 'Bush/Cheney is Satan', and 'we are the cause of the world's problems'. Good luck with that. Hope you find somebody who believes that stuff and you can have a rousing to-do with them. I don't, and never have.
Would it kill some of you guys to debate the actual people who are here, rather than these bizarre straw-man caricatures you keep dreaming up?
Who is hurt when we torture? Again, I refer you back to the numerous times I have expressed my opinion on that (and it's not just my opinion). For one, Americans are hurt when we unnecessarily contribute to the further radicalization of our enemies. For another, top military brass testified to Congress that when we torture, we increase the likelihood that our boys will get the same or worse treatment. I could go on, but I'm just repeating myself at this point.
Oz
Ozzie, no the one that holds water is the attempted attack on LAX. Lots of documentation available you just need the clearance to read it.
Regarding your torture and radicalize them we are repeating history. They want to kill us just as they have for centuries. Take a break from listening to yourself talk and read some history!
Then we have these sophmoric worries that frat type hazing constitutes torture. I can't speak for other vets that read this blog but can speak for myself and I went through it in our survival/capture training and it is not a big deal. On the other hand the other guys do, in fact torture the old fashioned way…broken bones, decapitation, and other even worse so why are we walking around mouthing platitudes about treat them like we want to be treated.
I have read plenty of history, Mickey. Both you and Mountain seem invested in pointing out that the terrorists are barbaric, delusional, amoral fanatics who want to slaughter us all. Can we just stipulate that and move on? Everybody already knows that. Why keep repeating the obvious?
Again, I am consistently struck by your need to minimize and downplay the brutal mistreatment inflicted on the detainees. I'd have some modicum of respect for your perspective if you could face what was done, honestly, and say "It was quite awful, but necessary."
But instead, there is this compulsion to look away: "Frat type hazing", "Putting a caterpillar in a cell", "splashing water on someone's face." Why do you all feel such a need to distance yourselves from the reality with such glib rationalizations? Can't you even engage the discussion on a reality-oriented basis?
Read the excerpts from the Red Cross report. This is 'frat-type hazing'? Maybe from the University of Hell, Mickey.
—————————————–
During the four months…when not kept in the prolonged stress standing position [with his hands shackled to the ceiling], his ankle shackles were allegedly kept attached by a one meter long chain to a pin fixed in the corner of the room where he was held.
…on several occasions the diaper was not replaced so he had to urinate and defecate on himself while shackled in the prolonged stress standing position. Indeed, in addition to Mr. Bin Attash, three other detainees specified that they had to defecate and urinate on themselves and remain standing in their own bodily fluids.
“Beating by use of a collar”, that “was placed around their necks and used by their interrogators to slam them against the walls.”
Mr. Abu Zubaydah commented that when the collar was first used on him in his third place of detention, he was slammed directly against a hard concrete wall. He was then placed in a tall box for several hours
Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face…
Prolonged nudity…periods ranging from several weeks to several months…
Sleep deprivation…through use of forced stress positions, hosed down with cold water…
Threats of ill-treatment to … his family…
Deprivation…of solid food from 3 days to 1 month…
In each case, the person to be suffocated was strapped to a tilting bed and a cloth was placed over the face…Water was then poured continuously onto the cloth, saturating it and blocking off any air so that the person could not breathe. This form of suffocation induced a feeling of panic and the acute impression that the person was about to die. In at least one case, this was accompanied by incontinence of urine.
In all three cases this caused considerable pain, particularly for Mr. Abu Zubaydah who had undergone surgery just three months earlier…Zubaydah reports: “…the pressure of the straps on my wounds caused severed pain. I vomited…I struggled without success to breathe. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine under stress.”
…during the two weeks he was shackled in the prolonged stress standing position with his hands chained above his head, his artificial leg was sometimes removed by the interrogators to increase the stress and fatigue of the position.
…alleged that…he was threatened with sodomy, and with the arrest and rape of his family.
Conclusions:
…they were subjected to systematic physical and/or psychological ill-treatment. This regime was clearly designed to undermine human dignity and to create a sense of futility by inducing, in many cases, severe physical and mental pain and suffering…
—————————————-
Oz
Yes, you are just repeating yourself. Louder and louder. But that doesn't make it any truer than the first time.
"IT'S TORTURE, IT'S TORTURE, IT'S TORTURE."
Just keep repeating that. Yup, convince yourself you are right. Geneva Convention and all. Illegal. Sure.
I can't speak for other vets that read this blog but can speak for myself and I went through it in our survival/capture training and it is not a big deal.
Waterboarding, in an of itself, in all situations, is not necessarily torture. For example, in the SERE training scenario, it clearly is not. There are many, many crucial differences between a training exercise and what was done to the detainees. I've enumerated them before, as have many people. I could rehash them, but they seem so obvious it's hard to see why I'd need to.
What we did to the detainees went well beyond a brief exposure to waterboarding.
Beating, chaining to the ceiling, days-long stress positions, prolonged sensory deprivation/isolation, locking in boxes, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, starvation, and dozens (or hundreds) of waterboarding sessions. Stretched across years. With detainees never knowing if they would be killed the next day or the next hour.
This was systematic, brutal mistreatment, inflicted on the orders of the Administration. And I seriously doubt anything worthwhile came of it. It's beneath us, in my opinion, but more importantly, it is illegal and counterproductive.
But let's have a prosecution, or at least a truth and reconciliation commission. Just air it all out. Why not? If you believe it was all justifiable and legal, surely you'd agree, right?
Oz
Well, Mountain, let's recap.
I've quoted the following thoughtful conservatives who agree that we tortured detainees:
Steven Bradbury
Peggy Noonan
Rick Warren
Jonah Goldberg
Rod Dreher
John McCain
Christopher Tollefson
Jim Manzi
George Will
(By the way, I read a recent poll saying that 70% of Americans believe that waterboarding is torture.)
I've explained in detail why the mistreatment clearly meets the definition of torture.
I pointed out specific instances when we hung Japanese and imprisoned lots of others for doing it, including our own citizens. I described the treaties and statutes that outlaw it.
And what substantive responses has Mountain Man made to all of this?
"Torture the terrorist b*st*rds. Take 'em out in the most painful way possible."
Nice, Mountain. One of us is losing this argument badly, and it ain't me.
Oz
"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot," – John McCain, October 2007.
Torture the terrorist b*st*rds.
I rest my case. Thanks all, it's been a bracing discussion.
Ozzie