Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
But at the time weren't our agents torturing and killing soviet agents?

I don't know. Were they?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How hard can a slap be? Take a pro football lineman. Let him slap away. There's a player getting that every sunday, 60+ times.

yes, but if you are slapping e.g. me like that, it seems different. I'm delicate. Like a flower.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
In the comments in the Making Light post I gave above, Terry Karney says that not a single one of the US soliders that were tortured by the Vietnamese gave up information, and it wasn't because they didn't have valuable information. I do not think it wasn't because the Vietnamese were too soft on them.

Rich Lowry

McCain’s Dubious High Ground
John McCain and his band of Republican rebels defying President Bush on the issue of interrogation have a strange attachment to confused argumentation.

By Rich Lowry


For people supposedly occupying the moral high ground, John McCain and his band of Republican rebels defying President Bush on the issue of interrogation have a strange attachment to confused argumentation.

They maintain that the United States can’t define more precisely its obligations for the treatment of unlawful combatants under the vague language of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to allow the tough interrogations of terrorists, as Bush proposes, lest our troops in turn be tortured upon capture. McCain warns that such a definitional exercise risks “the lives of those Americans who risk everything to defend our country.” What pleasant, alternate reality does the Arizona Republican inhabit?

Perhaps he missed the story a few months ago about the two American soldiers captured by al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda released a video of them, described by the British newspaper The Guardian: “One of them, partially naked, had been beheaded and his chest cut open. The other’s face was bruised, his jaw apparently broken, and his leg had long gashes. Fighters were shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.”

This is savagery immune to a domestic legal debate in the U.S. Maybe McCain and Co. think that the U.S. debate at least will influence our more reasonable adversaries. But since when have we fought a regime — Saddam’s Iraq, Milosevic’s Serbia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany — that is not barbarously committed to repression and murder?

No one in the U.S. had broached clarifying Common Article 3 in 1967 when McCain was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese, who proceeded to beat him routinely and keep him in solitary confinement for years. The North Koreans were equally disgusting. As a U.S. Senate committee concluded: “American prisoners of war who were not deliberately murdered at the time of capture or shortly after capture, were beaten, wounded, starved and tortured.”

Ah, if only the North Koreans had known how committed we were to giving the widest possible Common Article 3 protections to terrorists, maybe they would have re-thought their detention policies. McCain and Co. have a case of treaty fetishism. That is the belief that a piece of paper will alter the behavior of thugs. But a government will abide by the Geneva Conventions only if it is civilized; and if it is civilized, it is unlikely we will be fighting it, which is why we don’t have to worry about defending ourselves from, say, the Danes.

McCain and his allies, however, apparently have trouble distinguishing between civilization and barbarity. “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote in a widely circulated letter to McCain. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts.” So American troops fighting to establish decent governments halfway around the world can be confused morally with terrorists? What a slander, and how disgusting that a former secretary of state would give it any credence by repeating it.

The irony is that, for all his preening, McCain supports what he would call “torture” if the conditions are right. He has said of a ticking-time-bomb scenario — a terrorist has information of an imminent attack — “you do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it” (i.e. get sued or prosecuted). In other words, McCain wants to make it legally problematic for interrogators to undertake the very interrogations that he supports.

In real life, the closest we get to a ticking-time-bomb scenario is the one that prompted the CIA interrogation program — the capture of high-level al Qaeda operatives with knowledge of ongoing plots. McCain can’t bring himself to say that he opposes the program outright, so he professes to support it, but refuses to give the program the legal cover necessary for it to continue. And this is the moral high ground?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
yes, but if you are slapping e.g. me like that, it seems different. I'm delicate. Like a flower.

Yet tough enough to blow up a plane?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yet tough enough to blow up a plane?

Hell if I know. What do you think?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hamdan said Geneva applies. The President wants clarity to comply with the judiciary.

However, if the President didn't seek to comply with Hamdan, all of you would be in a uproar about how the Executive is ignoring an express direction from the judiciary.

It would be very simply to comply with Hamdan. The President doesn't want to. He wants the CIA to be able to torture people. If the President really wants clarity, he already has it. That's not what he wants. Fred Hiatt's WaPo editorial page explains:

• When Mr. Bush was asked Friday whether he wasn't in effect seeking sanction for torture, he responded with an evasion. He claimed that the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 is "very vague" and that his proposal would provide "clarity" for CIA professionals. In fact, the opposite is true.
  
  Common Article 3, which prohibits cruel treatment and humiliation, is an inflexible standard. The U.S. military, which lived with it comfortably for decades before the Bush administration, just reembraced it after a prolonged battle with the White House. The Army issued a thick manual this month that tells interrogators exactly what they can and cannot do in complying with the standard. The nation's most respected military leaders have said that they need and want nothing more to accomplish the mission of detaining and interrogating enemy prisoners -- and that harsher methods would be counterproductive.
  
  Mr. Bush wants to replace these clear rules with a flexible and subjective standard -- one that would legalize any method that does not "shock the conscience." What shocks the conscience? According to Mr. Bush's Justice Department, the torture techniques described above -- and at least in the past, waterboarding -- do not, "in certain circumstances." So Mr. Bush's real objection to Common Article 3 is not that it is vague. It is that it will not permit abusive practices that he isn't willing publicly to discuss or defend.

eta link

[SlaveNoMore]

Andrew McCarthy

Richard Miniter has an interesting article at Opinion Journal today, explaining that among the things that moved House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter toward the president's proposal on military commissions and away from the McCain/Graham/Warner proposal which is more modeled on the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the outrage that the UCMJ would require us to give Miranda warnings at the moment of battlefield capture for an al Qaeda terrorist.

This really demonstrates how irresponsible the passage and signing of the 2005 McCain Amendment was.

I note in fairness that I believe Sen. Graham — who I have criticized in these quarters for his stance on military commissions (see, e.g., here) — has indicated during senate hearings that he does not think al Qaeda should profit from the UCMJ's generous Miranda protections (which are actually better than what criminals get in the civilian justice system).

But that's irrelevant because the horse is already out of the barn.

Attention class: THANKS TO THE McCAIN AMENDMENT, WE ARE ALREADY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE MIRANDA WARNINGS IF WE HAVE ANY HOPE OF USING CONFESSION EVIDENCE IN EVENTUAL TERRORIST TRIALS.

This is very frustrating because people like yours truly implored Congress not to pass, and the president not to sign, the McCain Amendment for just this reason. The McCain Amendment vested alien enemy combatants held outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts with Fifth Amendment rights. This was something the senate had carefully refrained from doing in 1994 when it consented to the UN Convention Against Torture (which President Clinton then ratified).

In 2000, in Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court upended 30+ years of contrary jurisprudence by holding that the rights invented by the 1966 Miranda decision are now considered part of the core guarantee of the 5th Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination.

Consequently, if al Qaeda gets 5th Amendment protection, it also gets Miranda protection. Miranda requires a detainee to be told he has a right not to answer any questions, and a right to have a lawyer, at public expense, present for all questioning. That may not be what Congress and President Bush really intended, but that's what they did.

Now, neither Miranda nor the 5th Amendment forbids coercive interrogation short of torture. But they do mean that evidence derived from questioning that violates Miranda cannot be used at trial because to do so would violate the 5th Amendment — again, not because the Constitution itself gives the 5th Amendment to alien jihadists (it doesn't) but because the McCain Amendment does.

If Congress is upset at the prospect of battlefield Miranda warnings for jihadists, it should not just worry about the current interrogations/military commissions proposal. It should repeal the McCain Amendment's extension of constitutional rights to alien jihadists.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

• Perhaps he missed the story a few months ago about the two American soldiers captured by al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda released a video of them, described by the British newspaper The Guardian: “One of them, partially naked, had been beheaded and his chest cut open. The other’s face was bruised, his jaw apparently broken, and his leg had long gashes. Fighters were shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.”

Rich Lowry

I take it you view their actions as barbarous. Do you want us to be like them? Personally, I see us as better than that. Why do you hate America?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that if any of these things were to happen to one of our soldiers, we would consider it torture: [list=1][*] The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.[*] Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.[*] The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.[*] Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions. (this was a favortire of the Soviets. All one has to do is give in, and the pain stops. After about 48 hours crippling injuries occur. Somewhere in the 72-98 hour range the subject dies.) [*] The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.[*] Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.[/list=1]

There's an interesting discussion over at Making Light. Terry Karney in the comments is the army interrogator guy I know.

the head chop off? the prisioner is filmed having his head chopped off.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Oops. It was an Afghan.

"According to an article published in the October 15, 2004 New York Times 28 soldiers were under investigation. [3] Some of the soldiers were reservists in the 377th Military Police Company. The 377th was under the command of Captain Christopher M. Beiring. The rest were in the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion. They were under the command of Captain Carolyn A. Wood.

As of November 15, 2005 charges had been laid against 15 soldiers."

Those accused are being properly dealt with. So what's your point?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
not a single one of the US soliders that were tortured by the Vietnamese gave up information,

they made commercials saying the US sucks. I'm pretty sure some of them spilled whatever beans they had.

I'm just trying to break up Ty's arguing juggernaut- if it doesn't work to torture, then we don't really need to think about whether it is not worth it on balance. It just seems really unlikely to me that it hasn't provided any information and we still see the President fighting for it-

it's like the "wide net" wiretaps- if he is taking heat for continuing them, maybe they did some good? I'm not saying that should end the debate, but please try to keep it honest.

[Spanky]

On the issue of torture, I think we are getting sidetracked. The debate comes down to this.

1) I think it is obvious that our use of torture, and the fact that it has been made public, is hurting our image and our struggle for hearts and minds around the world. How many hearts ands minds have been won by the terrorists because of our use of torture is debatable.

2) There is just two plausible justifications for using torture. One is that it will discourage terrorists because their desire not to be in US custody will increase if they know we are torturing people. I do not think there is much evidence to support this idea. The second is that through torture we can extract information that will save American lives.

3) If you think that it is wrong to torture even if it will save American lives, then then the debate is over why american interrogators commting acts of torture is a greater evil than innocent Americans getting killed.

4) If you think that it is OK to torture terrorists suspects if it will save human lives, then the question is, how likely is it that torture will extract information that will save American lives. If it can't, then we shouldn't, and if it can, then we should.

BTW: The argument that our use of torture will increase the use of torture on our troops, in my mind, does not hold any water. In this war, the enemy will torture our troops regardless of whether or not we torture our prisoners.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we are getting sidetracked. The debate comes down to this.

and this will be my next thread title.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the issue of torture, I think we are getting sidetracked. The debate comes down to this.

1) I think it is obvious that our use of torture, and the fact that it has been made public, is hurting our image and our struggle for hearts and minds around the world. How many hearts ands minds have been won by the terrorists because of our use of torture is debatable.

2) There is just two plausible justifications for using torture. One is that it will discourage terrorists because their desire not to be in US custody will increase if they know we are torturing people. I do not think there is much evidence to support this idea. The second is that through torture we can extract information that will save American lives.

3) If you think that it is wrong to torture even if it will save American lives, then then the debate is over why american interrogators commting acts of torture is a greater evil than innocent Americans getting killed.

4) If you think that it is OK to torture terrorists suspects if it will save human lives, then the question is, how likely is it that torture will extract information that will save American lives. If it can't, then we shouldn't, and if it can, then we should.

The only justification is the "ticking time-bomb" scenario, and I doubt the utility of torture then because, well, the time-bomb is ticking and the prisoner knows he just has to make it until the timer expires. Other times, in addtion to being immoral, it just yields bogus results. Do you think the US prisoners of Viet Nam really thought the US sucked, or do you think they were just saying that to avoid torture?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
I take it you view their actions as barbarous. Do you want us to be like them?

If you actually equate the "belly slap" (or even waterboarding for that matter) with decapitation and murder, then there is no point for me to continue with this discussion.