posted by Damozel | During the last Republican debate, the candidates were asked their opinions on torture. "Brit Hume tackles the question of torture at the Republican debate by describing a doomsday scenario that comes right out of the op-ed pages of the NY Post and Surnow's FOX show "24." [John Amato, Crooks and Liars, Digby on the SC Debate]. After seeing Giuliani go off at length on a ferret lover calling in to a radio talk show to protest the New York ban on ferrets, nothing he says much surprises me, but I remain aghast that the American public isn't much more outraged than it appears by the candidates' responses. [Wonkette: "10:17 The audience just applauded waterboarding...." ].
As to the responses of the candidates: "Only 1 in 10 got it right."
[quote begins from Washington Post Editorial, May 17, 2006]
The scenario posited by questioner Brit Hume supposed that, after suicide attacks in several U.S. cities, a group of attackers believed to know about further strikes was captured off the coast of Florida and taken to Guantanamo. "How aggressively would you interrogate . . . ?" Mr. Hume asked. Mr. McCain answered that in that extreme and most unlikely situation, "I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility" for determining interrogation methods. But, he added, "We could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion."
The senator's words carried the weight not only of his own experience but that of the Bush administration, which has all but destroyed U.S. standing in many parts of the world because of the human rights abuses at Guantanamo, at Iraq's Abu Ghraib and in the CIA's secret prisons. Yet Mr. McCain's rivals seem to have learned nothing from this history. Rudy Giuliani said he would tell interrogators to use "every method they could think of," including waterboarding. Nonsensically, he added, "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this," though prisoner interrogations had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Mitt Romney...boasted that "we ought to double Guantanamo," presumably doubling the international damage. He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil." In fact, even President Bush has said he'd like to close Guantanamo; and his administration recently retreated from an attempt to curtail lawyers' access to the Guantanamo prisoners.
[quote ends from editorial]
In my note yesterday, I quoted extensively yesterday from a TNR article by Andrew Sullivan, a conservative whose opinions I respect, on the reasons why the use of torture contradicts the basic principles on which our democracy is founded. His note here discusses his shock and distate at the responses of Romney and Giuliani when presented with their hypothetical situation. [Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, Pametto Punditry']
But there are practical as well as moral objections, and the practical issues will doubtless be more persuasive to certain people who probably think of themselves as "hard-headed."
On this score, Gregory Djerejian's article at Belgravia Dispatch really IS a critical read: for the person who didn't learn any history in high school, it musters the evidence for the proposition: In addition to being morally indefensible, torture (by any other name) doesn't actually work. Furthermore, it adds some much needed, grisly clarity to what is meant by the phrase "aggressive interrogation techniques."
As far as I can tell, "aggressive interrogation" means: getting people to talk by putting them in imminent fear for their lives, while not actually beating them, racking them, pouring sulfuric acid on their feet, yanking out their fingernails, etc. In other words, it uses the fear of death rather than of extreme pain to get people to talk. It's the sort of tactic Tony Soprano would use in order not to leave a mark. Apparently, this sort of tactic doesn't "shock the conscience" of the ferret-loathing Giuliani and the rodent persecuting varmint hunter Mitt Romney, so I can only infer that a certain breed of Republican has a much more tougher conscience than the Democrats who oppose them---tough as an elephant's hide, in fact.
I am very sure I don't want my chief executive to be quite so unshocked by what I view as extreme cruelty. For one reason, that sort of moral stance tends to trickle down eventually to all incarnations of the executive, including local law enforcement.
You can see why people who crave power would encourage a certain breed of American to be afraid or to believe that by beating up on people they think might be bad guys the executive branch of the government can better serve them. If people believe this, they will cede power to the sort of politician who is willing to do whatever it takes to obtain power. But it seems obvious to me that outside of television and the movies, you can't get reliable information out of someone who is being tortured/"aggressively interrogated."
I am surprised that the Republican candidates are so inattentive to---or could it be, unaware of?---the position of the military--you know, those guys they are always claiming they fully support?--on torture. The military opposes torture, among other reasons, because such practices tend to spread out laterally. Common sense ought to tell even the most fearful Americans that if we use certain techniques to get information out of detainees, we are lowering the bar in all contexts.
We can only hope that they and their campaigns will read the following May 17 article in The Washington Post by Charles C. Krulak (commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999) and Joseph P. Hoar ( commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994).
[quote begins from "It's Our Cage Too"]:
Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."
We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation....
This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.
It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.
[quote ends]
At Balkinization, there is an in-depth discussion of this article and the responses of the Republican candidates by Jack Balkin ["The Military versus the Politicians on Torture," (May 17, 2006)]
The military's concerns about the current Administration's wish to bend the Geneva Conventions was eloquently addressed by representatives of the military a few months ago when the White House suggested a redefinition of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The effect of these changes would have allowed the Executive Branch to deal more aggressively with detainees. Remember that?
[quote begins from "A License to Abuse," The Washington Post, September 17, 2006]
PRESIDENT BUSH made crystal clear Friday that he has one overriding concern about the legislation on foreign detainees before Congress. His "one test," he said, was whether Congress would authorize what he repeatedly called "the program" -- that is, the CIA's network of secret prisons and its brutal treatment of the people in them. "Congress has got a decision to make," Mr. Bush declared during a news conference. "Do you want the program to go forward or not?"
That is indeed the most important question before Congress and the nation. So allow us to elaborate, again, exactly what Mr. Bush means by "the program." He's talking about the practice of sequestering terrorist suspects indefinitely and without charge in secret foreign locations and holding them incommunicado even from the International Red Cross. Until recently, such "disappearances" were the signature of Third World dictatorships. U.S. adoption of them has roiled relations with our closest European allies and impeded collaboration with foreign police and intelligence services.
Mr. Bush also wants the CIA to be able to treat its detainees to such practices as "cold cell," or induced hypothermia, in which detainees are held naked in near-freezing temperatures and repeatedly doused with water; "long standing," in which prisoners are handcuffed in an uncomfortable standing position and forced to remain there for up to 40 hours; and prolonged sleep deprivation.
Throughout the world and for decades, such practices have been called torture.... As the president himself tacitly acknowledges, they violate Geneva and other international conventions as well as current U.S. law. News that the United States has used these techniques -- as well as waterboarding, an ancient torture technique that simulates drowning -- has gravely damaged U.S. standing in the world and the fight against terrorism. It increases the danger that captured U.S. servicemen will be exposed to similar treatment by nations that might otherwise feel obliged to respect the Geneva standards.
[quote ends]
At that time, influential veterans and influential representatives from the military, as well as "three senators with impeccable military credentials" (McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham), argued that the president's policy "would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment" (quote from Carl Hulse New York Times, September 15, 2006)
I wonder if Giuliani and McCain, being outside this particular loop, really don't realize? If so, they need to educate themselves about some of the entirely pragmatic reasons why their apparent readiness to engage in "aggressive interrogation" would actually be detrimental to the nation's long-term interests.
The following letters respond as effectively to the scenario presented to the Republican candidates as they did to the Administration's proposed actions.
At that time, Retired General John Vessey sent this letter (dated September 12, 2006) to Senator McCain. In pertinent part, the letter stated:
[quote begins from letter of Gen. John Vessey, USA (Ret.) (September 12, 2006)
In 1950, three years after the creation of the Department of Defense, the then Secretary of Defense, General George C. Marshall, issued a small book, titled The Armed Forces Officer. The book summarizes the laws and traditions that governed our Armed Forces through the years...The last chapter is titled "Americans in Combat" and it lists 29 general propositions which govern the conduct of Americans in war. Number XXV, which I long ago underlined in my copy, reads as follows:
"The United States abides by the laws of war. Its Armed Forces, in their dealings with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, and their spirit and letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid so doing. Wanton cruelty, torture, or the working of unusual hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance. Likewise, the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes...
For the long term safety of the United States and for the safety of our own forces in battle, we should maintain those principles. I continue to read and hear that we are fighting "a different enemy" in the war on terror; no matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past...Through those years, we held on to those values.
General Colin Powell sent this letter (dated September 13, 2006) to Senator McCain. In it, he states:
[quote begins from letter of General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret.) to Senator McCain]
I have just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.
I have read the powerful and eloquent statement sent to you by one of my distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jack Vesey. I fully endorse in tone and and tint his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our own fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to these doubts. Furthermore it would put our own troops at risk.
[quote from letter ends; emphasis mine]
Most powerful and persuasive of all in arguing the case against lowering the bar for treatment of the detainees is this letter to Senators Warner and McCain from 38 retired military leaders, including two former joint chiefs of staff, opposing the Administration's proposed action.
[quote begins from letter]
As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense, we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.
We supported your efforts last year to clarify that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely. That was particularly important, because the Administration determined that it was not bound by the basic humane treatment standards contained in Geneva Common Article 3. Now that the Supreme Court has made clear that treatment of al Qaeda prisoners is governed by the GenevaConvention standards, the Administration is seeking to redefine Common Article 3, so as to downgrade those standards. We urge you to reject this effort.
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides the minimum standards for humane treatment and fair justice that apply to anyone captured in armed conflict. These standards were specifically designed to ensure that those who fall outside the other, more extensive, protections of the Conventions are treated in accordance with the values of civilized nations. The framers of the Conventions, including the American representatives, in particular wanted to ensure that Common Article 3 would apply in situations where a state party to the treaty, like the United States, fights an adversary that is not a party, including irregular forces like al Qaeda.
The United States military has abided by the basic requirements of Common Article 3 in every conflict since the Conventions were adopted. In each case, we applied the Geneva Conventions -- including, at a minimum, Common Article 3 -- even to enemies that systematically violated the Conventions themselves.
We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.
If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.
This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.
Last week, the Department of Defense issued a Directive reaffirming that the military will uphold the requirements of Common Article 3 with respect to all prisoners in its custody. We welcome this new policy.... But that clarity will be short-lived if the approach taken by Administration’s bill prevails. In contrast to the Pentagon’s new rules on detainee treatment, the bill would limit our definition of Common Article 3's terms by introducing a flexible, sliding scale that might allow certain coercive interrogation techniques under some circumstances, while forbidding them under others. This would replace an absolute standard – Common Article 3 -- with a relative one. To do so will only create further confusion.
Moreover, were we to take this step, we would be viewed by the rest of the world as having formally renounced the clear strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Our enemies would be encouraged to interpret the Conventions in their own way as well, placing our troops in jeopardy in future conflicts. And American moral authority in the war would be further damaged. All of this is unnecessary. As the senior serving Judge Advocates General recently testified, our armed forces have trained to Common Article 3 and can live within its requirements while waging the war on terror effectively....
[quote ends]
Those who support "aggressive interrogation techniques" argue that without such methods, we will not be able to procure crucial intelligence. I think the military would beg to differ. In his article at Belgravia Dispatch, Gregory Drjerejian points out that compliance with Army Field Manual 34-52 hasn't prevented the military from garnering useful intelligence. Furthermore
[quote begins from Gregory Drjerejian, Belgravia Dispatch, The American Way: Induced Hypothermia, Sleep Deprivation and Water-Boarding (quoting Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Lt. General Jeff Kimmons):
"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that. And, moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used."
As I said yesterday, I do not think that it is right or honorable for the U.S. to authorize any of the agents of the executive branch to use the techniques of bullies and thugs to achieve its ends, even if we were certain that these methods are as expedient as most people seem to believe. A person being waterboarded is likely, for example, to say anything to make it stop. How much time would be wasted in a doomsday scenario such as was presented to Brett Hume if a detainee who genuinely didn't have information to give gave disinformation just to put a stop to the torture?
I present these arguments for the benefit of those who snort loudly at the notion that torture of "terrorists" (meaning people believed to be terrorists) is immoral if it would save lives. Of course, for our representatives to authorize the use the tactics of bullies and thugs (frightened, cowardly people who resort to physical force out of fear) automatically makes bullies and thugs of us all.
No overprotective soccer mom who believes she needs the government to keep her children safe should be willing to allow the government to use any method of interrogation she wouldn't want it to use on those same children. The military has said, and is in a position to know, that lowering the bar for acceptable treatment of any prisoner means in effect lowering the bar for the treatment of captured U.S. forces.
Republicans who truly care for the welfare of the troops need to take these concerns to heart and rethink their position that any expedient (for the short-term) is acceptable in a situation in which our citizens are in grave danger. Furthermore, Republicans---the self-styled opponents of government expansion---need to think a lot further about handing over this sort of power to the Administration.
Comments