When you've lost the language, debate is impossible.
As the Obama Administration moves beyond its first 100 days, the hyperventilation over "torture" continues at a fevered pace. Not only is sawing off a person's head with a rusty saw considered "torture," so is putting a caterpillar in their prison cell. There's no real discussion of types of actions, degrees of action, whether it's been declared legal/illegal in the U.S. vs. illegal per another country or institution, Geneva Convention restrictions for uniformed combatants vs. non-uniformed combatants vs. entities that never signed the Geneva Convention. You know, what some people call "details," and other people refer to as "just details."
When you've lost the language, debate is impossible. What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis. Torture — according to today's definition — is severe mental or physical stress (no actual lasting, or permanent, physical or mental harm is necessary). The concept of torture is not just synonymous with "enhanced interrogation techniques;" today anything that is identified as "enhanced" is automatically considered "torture." The two words are treated as if they are identical, even though they mean qualitatively different things.
We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn't, how its abstract terms ("severe," "intimidating," "coercive," "mental anguish," etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this.
But what's the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator's or website's) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn't want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it's really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we're after information, not an admission of guilt). In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something "severe," what exactly is the non-abstract definition of "severe"? Is "severe" a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?). Or is it simply what you yourself consider to be stressful, and therefore "severe"?
Like I said, though, actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people's style, not to mention interfering with blaming Bush for certain things that Obama is excused for doing. So, putting all the boring, technical stuff aside, I've compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes "torture."
You can use these as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
1. Torture is anything described as "harsh" (as in "harsh interrogation techniques"), "severe," "intimidating," or "coercive." That makes amputating a person's head with a rusty saw "torture." It also makes coming home at 3 in the morning with lipstick on your collar "torture" when you are harshly and severely treated by your wife who intimidates you with a rolling pin (or a threat of divorce), and coerces you into getting rid of your bimbo girlfriend.
2. Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.
3. Sawing off a person's head is torture if practiced by a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Sawing off a person's head is not torture if practiced by a terrorist not formally affiliated with a recognized state. Rather, it's just a really bad thing (particularly for the person whose head is being detached), but understandable in some quarters because the person being decapitated is either a Jew or American (or both).
4. Rendition is a form of torture if practiced by the Bush Administration. However, rendition is part of keeping one's options open when practiced by the Obama Administration.
5. "Supermax prison is torture and death." This was written by someone with first-hand experience and must therefore be true, since it is just like journalists who experienced waterboarding and therefore have first-hand knowledge to assert that it is torture. This opinion is also backed up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which said that moving Gitmo detainees – including many only suspected of crimes – to the country's most secure prison "is simply another form of torture . . .."
6. Loud music and sleep deprivation are torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Loud music and sleep deprivation when partying on a weekend at college is not torture. However, it isn't just any kind of loud music that constitutes torture. In one of the few, rare instances where the word "torture" is actually defined in concrete terms in an award winning documentary on torture (instead of simply repeating the phrase the Bush Administration practices torture), the specific "loud music" used to torture some random Arab guy picked up off the street named Abu Zubaydah was "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" which was "blasted at full volume for hours on end." So, now you know. Playing Aerosmith or Bing Crosby at full blast is not necessarily torture, but playing The Red Hot Chili Peppers really is — or tracks from Eminem's "Slim Shady" album.
7. Prolonged kneeling is a form of torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Amazingly enough, preventing people from prolonged kneeling to protest torture is also considered an action supportive of torture.
8. The use of mind altering drugs is a form of torture, unless used by liberals and college students in general, in which case it is a manifestation of the right to privacy and an exercise of basic freedom.
9. Arresting someone without prior notification that they are going to be arrested is a form of torture. "The torture process can begin at the moment of arrest . . . Taking someone by surprise is more jarring than if someone has time to physically and mentally prepare himself or herself for arrest." Legislation is needed immediately within the United States requiring all law enforcement agencies to notify suspected serial killers, drug dealers, child-rapists, and other criminals of an intent to arrest them within the next 24-48 hours to give them sufficient time to "mentally prepare" for their incarceration. Remember, like the terrorists at Gitmo, these people have not been convicted of anything. There's just a suspicion that they might have done something wrong, but no actual courtroom-quality "proof" of their guilt at the time of their impending arrest.
10. "Scenarios designed to convince a detainee" that their family may be harmed is torture. In other words, if Big Tony threatens to bust your nephew's kneecaps unless you pay him the "Ten Large" you still owe him from last month, Big Tony is not a loan shark. He is a torturer. Interestingly enough, no follow through action on this threat is required to constitute torture. Sticks and stones will certainly break one's bones, but words alone make you a torturer.
I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter. If not, remember the words of Mr. Spock from a Star Trek episode a long time ago. "In an insane world, only the sane are considered insane."
LI Mike
Face it you only got to be 200 because the Trolls are suddenly silent. Otherwise, you’d now be 300.
As someone has noticed, like the WMDs which everybody believed in, Left & Right, Chuckie is another Dem who was for Torture before he was against it. And there were tons of them. Now, to return to Phil’s point in this thread, it’s their logic that’s tortured.
And sending a gay man into a poor devout Muslim’s cell… shame on you. You are now on the list for not only Chuckie’s “do what you have to Torture” but also the “no-doubt-about-it-Torture” (my new “definition”) when the Islamofascists take over. No “alternative method” for you.
Inwood:
Re: “Now, to return to Phil’s point in this thread, it’s their logic that’s tortured. … And sending a gay man into a poor devout Muslim’s cell… shame on you.”
Like I said in my post 141, they will always raise/lower the bar on what constitutes torture [or anything else, for that matter] … to suit their current need, as Phil pointed out.
I enjoy reading the articles on here and especially finding clarity in the comments back and forth. I used to think people generally fall into categories of the inarticulate, aggressively left, or aggressively right.
Partly from reading here, I no longer hold that position. I believe there are some who are committed to ‘truth’ wherever that leads, those who pick positions either left or right but cannot defend them but hold nevertheless, and those who pick positions like they’re picking a college football team (my Giants… blah blah blah).
I don’t believe there’s any other way to be committed to truth without an underlying principle base that does not argue with itself, and I don’t know where that comes from apart from Judeo-Christian roots. Maybe there are bits and pieces from some other religions but an orthodox Muslim for example embraces a principle base that requires Jihad, and most damning, the concept of using deception for a ‘good’ ends which by definition is contrary to truth.
Anyway, Phil’s and others’ good points aside, I don’t think anyone is persuaded very much unless they’re already embracing truth wherever that leads, and based on the sincerity of the illogical arguments from obviously very educated and intelligent writers, I don’t believe one can find the way unless beneath it all they are committed to a principle base that does not argue with itself.
LI Mike
Excluding the inarticulate, you have a rather dismissive binary view of the commenters here as “aggressively left” vs. “aggressively right”.
How about this: “there are intelligent people on this thread trying to transcend ‘Right’ or ‘Left’ on this issue”?
What the heck is the “Right” position on “Torture” or The Left one, for that matter? All good people agree that Torture is illegal. If you haven’t caught on after 200 comments, the trouble is, rather, in defining Torture.
Yes, there are loony Republicans as well as loony Dems who will defend their party’s position come what may, but you do a disservice to those of us on this site who, whether Republican or Democrat, say:
The lawyers who wrote the Interrogation Memos believed their analysis & conclusion that the waterboarding used by the CIA did not legally amount to Torture under the legal standards then in place. And The Administration, charged with preserving & protecting your a$$ (that enough “principle” for you?), was correct in believing them & relying on them. See, for instance, Victoria Toensing today:
“Critics Still Haven’t Read the ‘Torture’ Memos
The CIA proposed the methods. The Justice Department gave its advice.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html
And it’s childish & insulting to compare all of us here to acting as if this was a game & we were team fans.
You owe us an apology.
More Tortured Logic, here from The Hon. Holder:
“Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is [Andy McCarthy]”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhMDU=
“[Congressional QQ to AG Holder on "waterboarding"]
“Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
“[Rep} Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
"Holder: Intent is a huge part.
"Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
"Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.
"[ACM note: I'm not sure whether the Spanish Inquisition had a torture statute — the United States did not have one until 1994, and to this day federal torture law does not mention waterboarding. Nor does the federal war crimes statute. As I've recently noted, Sen. Kennedy posed an amendment in 2006 that would have specified waterboarding as a war crime — something he wouldn't have needed to do if it were already a war crime. The amendment was defeated.]
“… Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.
“Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?
“Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.
“Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?
“Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?
“Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.
“Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.
“The Attorney General may perhaps want to take a look at the brief his Justice Department filed … As Holder’s Justice Department put it (bold italics are mine):
” ‘[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” (case cite)… see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); [casecite)... (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. (case cite)(“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) [my bold italics and brackets]. . . . ‘
“In any event, the actions you take to waterboard are essentially the same whether the one inflicting the treatment is a miltary interrogation-resistance trainer or a CIA interrogator. (I am not saying all waterboarding is the same, nor am I denying that some waterboarding — such as sadistically practiced by the Japanese in WWII — rises to the level or torture. I am talking here only about these two situations: U.S. military trainer and CIA interrogator.) If Holder is correct that the military trainer does not commit torture because it is not his intent to inflict severe pain but to “equip” our military to deal with what he calls “illegal acts,” then the CIA interrogator cannot be guilty of torture either since his intent is not to inflict severe pain but to collect life-saving information.”
Read the whole thing
Inwood:
I don’t think I was clear. The side point I was trying to make was that folks (such as yourself) are able to sift through the nonsense because your primary personal commitment IS to the truth regardless of where it leads. My subpoint to that was that I believe the reason you’re able is because you most likely have a principle base that allows you to get there.
LI Mike
OK, “peace”, as my peace-principled in laws always tell me!
Not only am I principled, I am large; I contain multitudes & I am nuanced, so I might even contradict myself on torture when it comes to self preservation!
Here’s something that’ll get the moral preeners upset:
What’s your problem, Geneva Convention?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-5vylmmoB0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Falthouse%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2Flet%2Dme%2Dask%2Dyou%2Dquestion%2Dgeneva%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
Sedonaman – I’ve referred to alternative methods before. You can read the Latchmere House article linked to above, the first link in my reply to you in comment 132, or this, referred to a couple times before:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html
And, just for grins:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2009/05/the_real_life_ticking_bomb_sce.html
Dr. Jackson I’ve given up on. He’s the best possible demonstration of “deliberate stupidity” I can imagine, trying to ‘summarize’ my position by directly contradicting what I actually wrote. Disagreement is one thing; flatly refusing to even acknowledge what your opponent’s position is makes discussion pointless.
Raymond: ‘Moral torture’ as punishment (but not to secure information to save lives); the morality of torture bestowed by legal decisions; supporting torture under a system that expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment to show that you are a tough guy on terrorism, etc. are the best examples of deliberate stupidity anyone can point to.
All of these are your positions. Don’t blame the messenger when it’s your message.
Raymond:
Re: “ruses and trickery”
Sounds like torture to me.
Perfect illustration.
Since I don’t believe that torture actually does ‘secure information’ or ‘save lives’ (on the contrary, I think it puts lives at risk), that’s all that’s left. I don’t even support it as punishment, as I’ve said, since it puts lives at risk. In the specific case of terrorists, I’ve simply noted that my objection is based on practical grounds rather than any moral claim they have to decent treatment.
2009/05/gideons_getting_uppitywith_two.php#comments
No, but morality can be removed by the lack of legal decisions.
Since I don’t support torture at all, I can’t support it under a system that ‘expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment’. Indeed, I’ve very expressly pointed out that the detainees in question aren’t “under a system that expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment”… and I still oppose torturing them.
Again, “flatly refusing to even acknowledge what your opponent’s position is“. You’d think even Dr. Jackson would see how tortured his own logic is, but evidently he always has ‘more to give’. Ah, well, that’s it here. If he won’t see it by now, it’s just not going to happen.
(BTW, I’ve noticed that some advertiser on IC appears to be serving up PDF files – malicious ones that’ll install worms on your machine if you’re using Adobe Acrobat to read them. It was doing so even before I went on vacation last week.
Read about the vulnerability in Acrobat here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234
Disable Javascript in Acrobat to protect yourself. Or run Linux and/or use a different PDF reader, like me.)
Re: Post # 213.
That’s interesting. The other day, I clicked on a link in one of the messages IC sends to you regarding new comments and immediately got a window from my anti-virus software warning me of a Trojan horse virus. A scan seems to have fixed it.
Illustration #175 (and counting) why nobody takes Raymond seriously.
‘Moral torture’ as punishment (but not to secure information to save lives)
>Since I don’t believe that torture actually does ‘secure information’ or ‘save lives’ (on the contrary, I think it puts lives at risk), that’s all that’s left.
*** Er, actually no torture, period. is left. For a guy adamant about the inadvisability of “torture”, Raymond goes to great lengths to find ways to allow for torture. [And by the way, you just said again that torturing people for punishment is okay, just like the February 20, 2009 quote below].
the morality of torture bestowed by legal decisions
>No, but morality can be removed by the lack of legal decisions.
*** So, let me get this straight. The courts cannot “bestow” morality, but they can “remove” morality via not making it legal [the “lack of a legal decision]. This makes perfect sense to a moral relativist. The courts cannot tell you what is moral, but they can tell you something isn’t moral unless they specifically say it is — which is what is meant by “bestowing morality” via the courts.
Raymond’s contorted, double negative “removed by the lack of a decision” is the same concept as “bestowing”. Raymond thus argues against his own position by supporting his own position.
supporting torture under a system that expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
> Raymond May 20, 2009: Today’s Version of the truth — I never support torture. “Since I don’t support torture at all …
> Raymond May 11, 2009: The Version of the truth two weeks ago — I wouldn’t personally torture someone because it’s ineffective and stupid, but it’s not immoral for other people to torture them if a court says it’s okay: “If we as a country decide that we want to punish terrorists and other unlawful combatants by torturing them, I’ll disagree and say that’s stupid… but not immoral.
> Raymond February 20, 2009: The Version of the truth three months ago — I, personally, have no problem at all with torturing convicted terrorists. “I’ve argued that we need a process [the courts] for determining guilt or innocence. …I’ve also noted that morally, I’ve no problem with torturing terrorists (once convicted) – but also argued that in a “real-world setting” it’s no more effective than other means and has major drawbacks, like recruiting more terrorists.”
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/02/10/the-hopelessness-of-debate-part-ii/#comment-76482
>Again, “flatly refusing to even acknowledge what your opponent’s position is”.
*** Which position? You keep changing, backtracking, dissembling, etc. every time I cite your own words. Not to mention holding mutually-contradictory positions
“When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible”
Seems for some that Dr. Jackson’s adding derision to his irrefutable logic with regard to such a serious issue will not be tolerated while they do their moral preening about it!
As I keep saying it’s not so much the EITs as it is the EMTs (Enhanced Morality Techniques).
And some are selective (dishonest) in their references.
For instance, WW II Latchmere (softball) is offered as the sole British site (a lie; a Big Lie) &, QED, as an alternative to our hardball stuff in Club Gitmo.
To ignore Britain’s hardball alternative, The London Cage, when it’s been called to one’s attention is the mark of a defeated commenter.
Persuasion 101: Sometimes softball works, but rarely, & generally only if the “pursuadee” knows that he faces hardball if he doesn’t give out some good stuff as a result of the softball approach.
Don’t understand this or it interferes with moral preening?
Keep posted. The CIA leaks to their favs, here WaPo, are starting.
Prediction. Obama flip-flop of the summer of 2009:
“Battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration, the CIA is girding itself for more public scrutiny and is questioning whether agency personnel can conduct interrogations effectively under rules set out for the U.S. military, according to senior intelligence officials…
“Another intelligence official, who also asked not to be identified, said waterboarding and other harsh techniques ‘were meant to get hardened terrorists to a point where they were willing to answer questions.’ That capability, the official said, ‘is now gone.’ ”
H/T Instapundit, Jim Geraghty, Tom Maguire
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803126.html
BTW, From a Commentary Blog Thread:
Exit Strategy: The One decrees “Guantanamo” is hesto presto changed to “Chez Guevara” & declares problem solved.
Hey, Rush Limbaugh can change his T shirts to the new name.
Inwood: Since Raymond is now into refuting himself to refute himself to refute me, I’m going to ad PMS to his BDS.
PMS is a term coined by my wife and daughter to signify the mental torture I was subjected to during that time of the months — “Phil Must Suffer”.
Being subjected to the moral relativism and circular logic of his position as the simultaneous anti-torture, pro-torture-by-others-as-long-as-it’s-not-him-if-a-court-says-it’s-okay champion of human rights, makes me wish for the good old days when I only had to deal with screaming hormones.
As you’ve noted, there’s really not much more to say other than to point out the unintended comedic value of his comments.
BTW
I see from O’R last nite that Jesse Ventura said on The View that we only torture muslims; never white guys like McVey. and,”everyone” knows that no useful info is ever gathered from torture.
More moral preening.
First he & the babes assume that the Bush EITs were torture, which point we’ve exhausted,
Next, it’s difficult to determine what results any interrogation technique will produce, even the coffee & doughnuts from your alleged buddy, the good cop, technique. We have to rely on the skill of the interrogators to separate the wheat from the chaff. Only those suffering from an acute case of BDS doubt that EITs did, indeed, produce some life-saving info from some of these guys. It’s also clear to anyone with a brain (confirmed by the CIA leak referred to in my post #216) that now that all detainees know (the interrogation memos, a/k/a, “Torture” memos are a “CIA Tactics For Dummies” handbook) that nothing untoward will be done unto them (The One said that, & he means it, no? Well, today he means it!); none of them will tell us anything of value, regardless of how we threaten them. Not a good result, methinks.
And as I, a lawyer, can tell you, some interrogation techniques that would produce a mistrial in a criminal case or result in evidence being excluded as improperly “gathered”, may & must be used for military intelligence gathering. If that’s what one is after. And, now they aren’t being used anymore (The One said that, & he means it, no? Well, today he means it!) & haven’t been used since 2004 or 2005, alas.
Someone once said that the ACLU thinks that all military trials are kangaroo proceedings where the accused is dragged before a panel of sadistic martinets, convicted on the basis of perjured evidence (which has been extracted by torture), & sentenced to fifty or sixty years of solitary confinement, chained to the wall of a subterranean dungeon, & fed on bread & water. Interestingly enough, in regard to the alleged terrorists, if one reads Justice Roberts’ dissent in Boumediene & Deborah Burlingame’s WSJ article two weeks ago, one gets a different picture.
As either Roberts’ or Scalia noted, it would’ve been fun to have tried all the German prisoners on U.S. soil in WW II in Federal Courts. Hey, FDR could’ve gotten more appointees to the Federal Bench!
But, in the end a naïf like Jesse V is confusing information produced from Military Intelligence Gathering with evidence appropriate to be introduced in a Civilian or Military court for purposes of a conviction. This is what the Left wants to do: make us conduct Military Intelligence Gathering techniques in the same limited manner in which we are allowed to interrogate suspects in the civilian criminal trial process. EITs are for Military Intelligence Gathering in situations concerning credible threats to the Country’s security, its continuance as a Nation. EITs are not a technique for a beleaguered constable who can’t find any evidence for a criminal trial.
Let me spell it out again for the Jesse V’s: none of the info obtained only from the coercive EIT methods described would be allowed as evidence for conviction of the perp in a military court or civilian court trial. Ya see, then it wouldn’t be what we refer to as a trial! And, if a confession or other evidence which the prosecutor intends to use against a defendant in a criminal trial were proven to have been coerced, such defendant does not have a further burden of proving that such coercion amounted to “torture”.
The Law of War hasn’t changed. Just Administrations.
“An unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.”
No mention of whether these guys were tortured & we know that torture leads to heavier recruitment for the bad guys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?_r=1
****************
” ‘I don’t doubt that the President–and I think he’ll say this tomorrow–that we’ve made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind. And closing Guantanamo Bay obviously is one of those decisions,’ [Robert Gibbs}added.
….
“Gibbs’ comment appears to affirm some White House critics who argued that closing Guantanamo Bay was a policy shift easier said than done.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/white_house_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html
***************
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 90
NAYs 6
Not Voting 3
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00196#name
H/T Commentary Blog
Regarding the link and quote in #209 – It just didn’t make sense. I poked around and found some writing by the Rand Corporation on how recruits are targeted, indoctrinated and ‘transformed.’
It’s more involved than people getting pissed off about water boarding. I’m wary of that particular source who claims that was the #1 motivational factor for recruitment.
From Chapter 5, Al-Qaida: Terrorist Selection and Recruitment, by Scott Gerwehr and Sara Daly – both of the RAND Corporation
The following is a summary, the whole chapter is here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2006/RAND_RP1214.pdf
This was a study based on the social-psychological and sociological literature used in different regions, persuasive instruments used whether through media or personal contacting in closed settings such as prison or paramilitary training camps, open-source, academic, and journalistic accounts used in the past and an assessment of those who seek to join al-Qaida.
Recruitment ‘pitches’ are tailored to the audience; encouraging a youth to leave home may be couched in patriotic terms if from a privileged class, as social advancement if an immigrant and struggling, or as being revolutionary/self-discovery if the family is disapproving. When terrorist groups are banned from school campuses, they disguise activities to avoid interference.
There is no single process but there are as many methods used as there are distinct regions, and they change over time as circumstances change.
The ‘net pattern’ for example is used when the target demographic is homogenous, there is little serious opposition, and a video may be sent to every member of a congregation, or every student is invited to a weekend retreat. A typical example would be a mosque headed an imam who is recognized as ‘radical,’ or a region such as the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan.
The ‘funnel approach’ is incremental, phased, and the target population is ripe for recruitment yet requires significant transformation in identity and motivation, uses culling along the way, hazing rituals, identity building exercises, and indoctrination into radical Islam and the use of violence to achieve its goals. Those who don’t progress to the end are sometimes used as intermediaries for recruitment.
The ‘infection approach’ is used in insulated populations and works from within by using a trusted agent who uses direct and personal appeals. Typical targets are organizations such as police and military, starting first with members who are dissatisfied with their jobs, have grudges against the government, and regionally this works best in places like Kenya and Tanzania where most of the population is unsympathetic to al-Qaida but selected individuals can be recruited.
The ‘seed crystal’ is used where open recruiting is difficult or impossible, yet this was the method used to recruit the Hamburg cell, the plotters of the 9/11 attack. It’s a longer process, information is sent to the target group over time, and clandestine recruiters are trained to recognize those who are susceptible to recruitment.
Every form of mass media is used (newspapers, radio, television, web) as well as sermons, rumors, education and training. Textbooks that support the ideology are supplied to schools where its reading is then made mandatory.
Methods used are sidewalk proselytizing, festivals, demonstrations, rehabs, kin/peer proselytizing, rituals, seminars, schooling, training, niche marketing such as magazines, web sites, newspapers such as Samizdat, car-trunk videos, tv, radio broadcast, posters, and threaded chat.
Prisons, refugee camps, opportunities offered during wartime such as occupation are typically good settings. Recruiters comingle and target individuals or small groups they believe are best targets such as young single men, devout members of a particular religious congregation, and those who respond to jihadist or martyrdom videos.
Some methods are Arab newspaper ads decrying the US and its role in Iraq and Israel, individuals recovering from addictions in private clinics; they attend prayer sessions in a neighbor’s living room, infiltrate government paramilitary training, and vocational tutoring of individuals. They heavily use personal recommendations, using family members, and tailor the personal appeal depending on the individual.
Since the loss of the training camps in Afghanistan, and through the experience of building personal networks from fighting jihads in Chechnya, Iraq, etc, password protected web sites and restricted internet chat groups have emerged ‘virtual jihad,’ allowing for the impact on many targets at once and has a more favorable controlled environment without interference.
Characteristics of those targeted: high level of current distress, dissatisfaction, cultural disillusionment, unfulfilled idealism, lack of religious belief or value system, dysfunctional family system, and dependent personality tendencies.
Richard Reid, the ‘shoe bomber’ had at least 4 of the above 5 characteristics. His father was in prison for most of his adult life, parents were separated when he was young, cultural non-assimilation in the UK, attended all white schools, was living a life of petty crime and then converted to Islam in prison in his 20s. His imam described him as having ‘weak character’ and being ‘very, very impressionable.’
Common techniques begin with initial contact resulting in subsequent and more intense contacts, an identity transformation process such as joining a group as a self-identified member.
Common to all techniques used is that they exploit and create physical and mental trauma to produce a dissociative state in the target individual – identity, memory, consciousness, awareness and rational thought are in flux; and then a transformation is made.
Inwood:
Re: “And as I, a lawyer, can tell you, some interrogation techniques that would produce a mistrial in a criminal case or result in evidence being excluded as improperly “gathered”, may & must be used for military intelligence gathering. … Someone once said that the ACLU thinks that all military trials are kangaroo proceedings…”
The next thing the ACLU, et al, will probably demand is that any information gathered by “EIT” cannot be used to aid in defending against terrorist attacks. Heather MacDonald once said about the ACLU that it comes “very close to saying there is no such thing as a legitimate police investigation.”
I would also hazard to say that there has been a de facto change in The Law of War for our side, i.e., liberals have raised the bar for the US … again.
LI Mike
You obviously don’t understand the logic here.
Let me explain it in simple terms: The NYY have just won eight games in a row. This will, in your phrase, be the #1 motivational force for recruitment of Red Sox fans. You will see.
You’ve got to understand the ACLU/BDS way of thinking. Our wealth, instead of being a beacon to the downtrodden in Muslim countries makes them paranoid & depressed & open to reasonable suggestions like “Death To The Great Satan”.
The fact that the Israelis took the worst part of that damn area in the Middle East & made it bloom while the Palestinians can’t do anything but blow themselves & others up, means that the Israelis are the devil & must be destroyed & is a good recruitment tool for Palestinian leaders who don’t want to blow themselves up.
The same with crime in the US. The fact that the CEOs of American corporations get big bucks causes the yoots in da inner city to rape & mug mostly their defenseless neighbors in the inner city who are would-be strivers. Ya gotta understand the root causes.
And when it suits the purposes of the moral preeners, the British conduct against the Irish terrorists (root causes for the IRA? Nevermind!) in Mountjoy (ironic name, no?) prison in the early 1900s & in the “maze”, OOPS Her Majesty’s Prison Maze, in the late 1900s is ignored (a recruitment tool for the IRA? Nevermind! Let’s move on; nothing to see there;) & the softball treatment of 400 WW II POWs is highlighted as if The London Cage never existed.
Got it? If not, go to Moveon.org or the Daily Kos. They’ll explain it all for you.
LI Mike
Let me be clearer: The trolls are not going off the reservation or sidebarring; they are working from the approved text.
P
I see that Wal-Mart offers “one-stop shopping”. That is, in one place, you can get your eyes examined for glasses, your car serviced, tonite’s dinner, your drugs, tools for your house, etc.
What some don’t understand is that at Gitmo, the prisoners could get one stop hardball or softball without having to be moved from place to place!
Your troll was fooled about Britain. It wasn’t one-stop shopping. He saw only the softball place (Latchmere), not realizing (or, not wanting to realize) that there was a hardball place (The London Cage).
Inwood:
Thanks very much for the explanation and laughs. Lately the only way to get down the events of the day is with dose of parody (theonion.com).
After reading of the tactics of Saul Alinsky, and then taking a look at today’s American liberalism, I wonder how can there be any self-respect in the mix in using any means available. What a waste of time it is as well to have a discussion based on the issues – there is never going to be any resolution since the goal of the interactions for the left is not to get to the bottom of things but to prevail.
I can understand that for those actually in politics that demagoguery works as it did in Chicago for Alinsky and BHO, as in organized crime killing people is something that just has to be done, but for those there’s a tangible reward.
How does one become ‘a troll,’ a virtual character from Glenngary Glen Ross, speaking entirely for effect, where if truth happens it’s merely a coincidence? What’s in it for them?
Maybe it is about feeling good about oneself in some cases, and the group they’re with applauds deceptive efforts, considers them clever and creative.
Well in any event, after a great article and 200+ comments, any logical thinking person would have to conclude that EIT works, produced tangible results such as saving LA, produced those results using the only methods possible, as Dick Cheney said yesterday, ‘gave us information on OUR timeline rather than their time (so much for 18 month ‘befriending’ methods), did not put our troops at risk by causing a rush for terrorist enlistments, and worrying about world opinion is a manipulation since the only way we can improve that is by blowing all of ourselves up (same as for Israel).
LI Mike
As Nancy P would say here: “I (Inwood) stand by your statement in #225!”