Pres. Obama admits USA torture

[Michael]

Apparently most Americans will rationalize and justify torture as long as it's done against the bad guys, as designated by the torturers, such as the entirely (in)credible Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Gonzalez, et al.

But hey, Jack Bauer says torture is kewl...

[Alexatron]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... wwii.html#

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 47,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... memos.html

[windwalker]

One memo said waterboarding had been used a total of 266 times on two of the three al Qaeda suspects "only 266 times"

Obama announced a ban to the technique in January but drew anger from human rights groups, by saying last week he would not prosecute CIA interrogators who had complied with the Bush-era legal guidelines.
On Monday the President visited CIA headquarters and told agency employees that the fight against al Qaeda and other challenges, make their expertise vital. He he pledged his full support.
John McCain has repeatedly criticized the use of certain techniques that have been described by critics as torture but claims the release of memos would not help the image of the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... memos.html

Obama announced a ban to the technique in January but drew anger from human rights groups, by saying last week he would not prosecute CIA interrogators who had complied with the Bush-era legal guidelines.
On Monday the President visited CIA headquarters and told agency employees that the fight against al Qaeda and other challenges, make their expertise vital. He he pledged his full support.

justification for " Superior orders "

wow, he cant have it both ways.

the whole point of "admitting, naming, calling it torture" is that it acknowledges /admits what was done in a legal sense
the next step is to take "legal actions" against those who ordered it, and those who carried it out.

ah what the hell "Befehl ist Befehl" ("orders are orders") might as well use it.
worked in the past, or did the US change that

maybe the President is just allowing the law,
to run its course.

There are those that feel he doesn't follow them,
like those who are currently trying to sue him now. They like laws....

"the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE; 1946–48) convicted 25 Japanese leaders of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically including torture by waterboarding (referred to by the IMTFE as the 'water treatment')."

http://dgarygrady.com/2012/05/28/waterboarding/
http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... sconvicted

Because of the photo, the US Army initiates an investigation, and the soldier is court-martialed and convicted of torturing a prisoner.

makes one wonder if it wasnt known, would anything have been done.
the soldier should have just said "Befehl ist Befehl" worked before

[yeniseri]

Well, if nobody sees the act of torture, does that mean it never happened or it's not legal, or there is no video of it.
I recall that during the Vietnam (I was not there) there was a South Vietnamese captive who was shot in the head but when it was first reported, the media claimed it never happened. But lo and behold, the video surfaced and the fan was muddied with crap! The same scenario existed for Abu Ghraib!

[Steve James]

But, that wasn't torture; that was an execution ... and, iirc, it was a S. Vietnamese officer who did the shooting. That's not to say that torture and other, worse, atrocities happened.

[Michael]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html#

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 47,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... memos.html

Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen that first one before.

Alexa, since you're not saying much about how to legalize torture or about your links, I'll just write a counter point to the first article.

LOL @ the "hand-wringing" mentioned by the author of the article. WW2 lasted 5-8 years depending on how you count it. The USA Government has defined the Global War on Terror as lasting either 100 years or indefinitely. The implication of the article is that a limited amount of torture during a self-defense, life or death struggle for a country, and perhaps a civilization, was necessary. Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, and to keep this brief, how can this WW2 justification be extrapolated into a war with no time limit where goat herders are sold into a torture program?

The other problem with the article is that it uses an example of torture for turning spies to win a war. It's entirely possible that there is at least some truth to that depending on what limited viewpoint is taken. The reality is that spies are turned all the time, usually for money, and the corruption within the so-called intelligence agencies grows because of legal status of keeping secrets. The list of known scandals in the spy agencies is extensive and suggests to me a fundamental problem with their existence on the post WW2 or Cold War scale.

Of course there's a legitimate need for secrets in some places in government, notably the military, but my point is that secrecy is in conflict with the checks and balances, as well as transparency and accountability, needed to prevent corruption and abuse that has grown as the intelligence/security/surveillance state has grown. I can see no sign that "intelligence" or secrecy has brought peace or prosperity. During my lifetime, it has been an inverse relationship between the two.

Keeping it brief.

Can you give any specifics about how you think torture should be legalized?

[Alexatron]

Can you give any specifics about how you think torture should be legalized?

Very carefully. How's that for brief?

For a start I wouldn't put myself forward as the expert on this subject but would suggest that people with far more insight than me should be able to come up with a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that torture isn't used unless a very strong case can be made for its use.
Some ideas off the top of my head:
1. It has to be proven that all other practical and appropriate methods at gathering the required intel have been explored first.
2. Strong evidence would have to be presented that the person in custody is a likely candidate to have the desired information.
3. The information required would have to be of a nature that would save lives (i.e. prevent future events rather than investigate historical events).
4. The information would have to be time sensitive i.e. urgent.
Maybe a jury of qualified people have to reach consensus before torture is used.
Other thoughts are that:
Torture be conducted in a scientific manner so that it is effective. As an example some people 'get off' getting the crap beaten out of them so it would be pointless using that sort of technique on them.
The whole process has to be open to independent review with accountability if its found it has been used inappropriately.
I'm sure smarter people than me could come up with more than the few ideas above.

Whether torture is legalized or not we all know it'll still be used so surely it would be better to have it out in the open and under scrutiny rather than used in secret with no controls or accountability. Also if it was out in the open at least its effectiveness could be properly analyzed. This might lead to voluntary abandonment of torture as a viable intel gathering technique if it was found ineffective.

I think this debate has parallels with the debate around euthanasia. Whether that is legal or not it still goes on.

[Michael]

Before I reply, I'm going to re-read the John Yoo torture memos from the Bush, Jr. administration.

I'm a slow reader.

[river rider]

And what do we do when we torture the innocent? Are they just collateral damage? Do we even have the ability to repair their lives afterwards?

Hey, why stop there? Its very effective to torture a suspect's loved ones, friends and families. How long before we'll institutionalize this practice too?

Fight the dirtbags by becoming dirtbags. What an idea!

[Steve James]

And what do we do when we torture the innocent? Are they just collateral damage? Do we even have the ability to repair their lives afterwards?

Exactly. Let's remember that torture has been used to extract confessions far more than military information. When someone was accused of being a witch --or a Catholic-- they could be tortured to tell the truth. That didn't start in the middle ages or end in the age of Puritans, either. The difference is that most societies have come to consider torture to be immoral in and of itself, no matter the reason. For ex., we could torture criminals to make them confess to their crimes "or' to admit whether they had committed a crime or not. However, would that mean that we were finding out who committed crimes or that we getting a lot more confessions?

The case of the Central Park jogger is a classic example. These young men weren't physically tortured. If they could have been, there's little doubt they would have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

Btw, the effects it has on the torturers is another factor that should be considered when we ask whether it is worth it.

[Alexatron]

And what do we do when we torture the innocent? Are they just collateral damage? Do we even have the ability to repair their lives afterwards?

Hey, why stop there? Its very effective to torture a suspect's loved ones, friends and families. How long before we'll institutionalize this practice too?

Fight the dirtbags by becoming dirtbags. What an idea!

We fairly regularly imprison the innocent by mistake - what's your suggestion - do away with police, the justice system and prisons to avoid the odd innoncent person getting imprisoned? Any suggestions on what we fill the void with or do we just trust in everyones goodwill?

[bailewen]

1. It has to be proven that all other practical and appropriate methods at gathering the required intel have been explored first.
2. Strong evidence would have to be presented that the person in custody is a likely candidate to have the desired information.
3. The information required would have to be of a nature that would save lives (i.e. prevent future events rather than investigate historical events).
4. The information would have to be time sensitive i.e. urgent.

Alexatron,

Your 4 points still missed the one big point: Torture is completely ineffective at acquiring any of the information needed. Don't take my word for it, ask the experts. Back when Rumsfield and company were still defending it, they did some incredible mental gymnastics to try and tell us about all the lives they'd save because of it but in each and every singel case, they got bupkis.

So far, the US govt. has not been able to provide evidence of even a single terrorist attack that was avoided because of torture. Take alook at the big example they used to hold up as one of their greatest successes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sh ... errogation

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing[69] in Guantanamo Bay—confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks,

Now let's look at your 4 points:

1. Lets just pretend, for the sake of argument, that it was proven.
2. I'll give you that one too.
3. Big fat fail. They were torturing him after the fact. But, again, lets just pretend that we knew he was planning more stuff in the future (which begs the question: If we already know, why do we still need to toture him for the info?)
4. I'll give you that one too.

So in this hyphothetical I give you all 4 of your preconditions....

What happened?

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing[69] in Guantanamo Bay—confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.

FOUR YEARS later, he confessed to a bunch of FAILED attacks.

Why did they fail? Because they were stopped in some cases through traditional methods and in others just blind luck. 4 years of torture, capitivity and isolation and we got bupkis.

The ONLY thing toture is good for is forcing confessions and just plain taking out your personal rage on someone.

At least you're not an American so you don't have to take it personally. For me, it's a disgrace and makes me absolutely humiliated. We are the new bad guys. When I was a kid, we (the US) was basically a hero on the world stage. I know we did some nasty shit here and there in the shadows but overall we still had at least a kind of symbolic power as Reagan (and I'm a far left progressive) said, we were a "Shining city upon a hill".

Not anymore.

[Steve James]

We fairly regularly imprison the innocent by mistake - what's your suggestion - do away with police, the justice system and prisons to avoid the odd innoncent person getting imprisoned?

It's called the Constitution, and the theory is (or is supposed to be) is

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It's hard to disagree if one is that innocent person. But, that's the legal principle. Of course, if the torture site is on foreign soil and the torturee isn't American, the Constitution doesn't apply. However, that doesn't change the reason for the principle.

[windwalker]

the most troubling issue about this is that for the most part, all parties involved knew that it violated many conventions, laws, signed or up held by our gov.
their point was to find a way to protect themselves and those that "followed orders" to conduct it.

one would think with a historical perspective that many of the arguments used would be seen in the same light as those used in our past for other actions
that today we say would never happen,,, would they? could they?

words have power, the gov, is very careful in choosing what words it uses to describe certain events understanding that once used actions either for or against must or should come into play. When the President of the United States says " we tortured some people" its an admitted action that calls on other actions to be taken against those who violated laws concerning its use. Unless of course, some how the laws are changed

FEB. 2 A memorandum from William H. Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, to Mr. Gonzales warned that the broad rejection of the Geneva Conventions posed several problems. "A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the conventions in the event they are captured." An attachment to this memorandum, written by a State Department lawyer, showed that most of the administration's senior lawyers agreed that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable. The attachment noted that C.I.A. lawyers asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/internationa ... .html?_r=0

The attachment noted that C.I.A. lawyers asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives

white man speak with forked tongue

The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to deliberately say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. In the longstanding tradition of many Native American tribes, "speaking with a forked tongue" has meant lying, and a person was no longer considered worthy of trust, once he had been shown to "speak with a forked tongue". This phrase was also adopted by Americans around the time of the Revolution, and may be found in abundant references from the early 19th century — often reporting on American officers who sought to convince the tribal leaders with whom they negotiated that they "spoke with a straight and not with a forked tongue" (as for example, President Andrew Jackson told the Creek Nation in 1829[16]) According to one 1859 account, the native proverb that the "white man spoke with a forked tongue" originated as a result of the French tactic of the 1690s, in their war with the Iroquois, of inviting their enemies to attend a Peace Conference, only to be slaughtered or captured.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forked_tongue

[windwalker]

Photojournalist James Foley was repeatedly tortured by his ISIS captors — who even waterboarded him — before he was beheaded, sources told NBC News. As the Washington Post first reported, the Islamic extremists appeared to be deliberately imitating the controversial U.S. "enhanced interrogation technique," which simulates drowning. Waterboarding, which was authorized by President Bush's administration, was banned by President Obama, who denounced it as torture.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/james- ... es-n191876
maybe its wasnt torture when they did it, now it is , with "enhanced interrogation techniques" its hard to know.
the President, denounced it as torture, so far has done nothing to those who ordered it or carried it out.

In 2002, a young Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, who'd never spent a night away from his dusty little village, got lost in the fog of war and took a wrong turn into an abyss from which he would never return. It was a detention center at Bagram Air Base, where he was grilled on suspicion of being a Taliban fighter. Military interrogators hung him from a cage in chains, kept him up all night and kicked him senseless, turning his legs into pulp.



He lasted only five days. The Army initially attributed his death to natural causes, even though coroners had ruled it a homicide. Low-level soldiers were punished. It turned out that Dilawar (who, like many Afghans, used only one name) was not an enemy fighter, had no terrorist connections and had committed no crime at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01569.html

wrong place, wrong time