John Yoo's Long Lost Cousin

[kenberg]

To repeat as far as I know torture is against the law and has been for decades if not hundreds of years in the USA. I hope people in other countries do not think torture is legal in the USA. With three hundred million people I have no doubt someone may have gotten away with torture but I hope the perception is that it is extremely rare and even more extremely rare when carried about by our government.

 

That may be the case but if that's so illegal why is the government torturing terror suspects for information? And getting away with it? Ah... it's illegal only when we say it's illegal, and in some places it's just necessary so we rename it to "interrogation" or just pretend it's not in the USA even if it's that territory.

 

Note that this is not anti-USA but they seem to be the main target. I am against ANY government that thinks waterboarding and similar things are ever appropriate interrogation techniques.

 

And if the French did so in the past, those who ordered it should be taken to the Hague together with the US responsibles. And if they stopped doing it, congratulations for coming to your senses.

I want to repeat that I was not intending specific examination of the French. It is my understanding that not only was torture done by the French during the struggle with Algeria but that it was not unique to them. Many European countries have had to deal with various terrorist threats. The Spanish have had long standing problems with Basque separatists (the Catalan issue is more settled I think?), the Germans had problems with the Red whatevers, and so on. Many of these countries have substantial Islamic populations, many of them in jail (more than have the prison population of France is Muslim, yes?). Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

[Gerben42]

Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

 

Sorry but how else would you want to treat them? It's not the middle ages anymore.

 

Recently in Germany there were two guys who put a bomb on a train as a terrorist attack, but somehow it didn't work. Police matter.

 

Same with the "Rote Armee Fraktion", a terrorist organisation of some decades ago. The members of the group have been put on trial. Recently there was news about them because one of them had spent several decades in prison and was released.

 

There is a lot of horror in the world but those who represent the law have to take care that they make sure that they do not break the law themselves.

 

Around here the image of American law enforcement isn't that positive, and stories of torture from Abu Grahib or Gitmo, trigger happy police officers, secret prisoner transportation over European airspace on a "don't need to know" basis, innocent people detained at the US border for no reason etc. are NOT helping. I know that these are probably not the rule, but that's what's in the news here.

[cherdano]

In the hot days of the RAF, Germany as a nation certainly overreacted to the terrorist threat. Some people were erroneously put up on "Wanted"-ads for a decade by pure acquaintance with some terrorists. The mayor of Stuttgart drew a lot of fire for *gasp* allowing deceased RAF members to be buried in one of the cities major funerals. The chancellor would have resigned if the rescue attempt of the "Landshut" (a hijacked airplane) had ended deadly. Etc.

But I don't know of a single public figure who would have argued for using torture to prevent further terrorist attacks.

 

There is a lot of common ground between the US and Europe, but if you want to find it with regards to the stand on torture, then you should look at the agreement between the overwhelming majority of Europe and the side among the American public that condemns torture under any circumstance.

[kenberg]

Is it the case that across Europe there is great consensus that these problems are all to be dealt with as police matters, bringing everyone before a magistrate, giving them a lawyer, making sure that they are properly treated and so on? I am sorry to be so badly informed, but I am. Help me out here.

 

Sorry but how else would you want to treat them? It's not the middle ages anymore.

 

Recently in Germany there were two guys who put a bomb on a train as a terrorist attack, but somehow it didn't work. Police matter.

 

Same with the "Rote Armee Fraktion", a terrorist organisation of some decades ago. The members of the group have been put on trial. Recently there was news about them because one of them had spent several decades in prison and was released.

 

There is a lot of horror in the world but those who represent the law have to take care that they make sure that they do not break the law themselves.

 

Around here the image of American law enforcement isn't that positive, and stories of torture from Abu Grahib or Gitmo, trigger happy police officers, secret prisoner transportation over European airspace on a "don't need to know" basis, innocent people detained at the US border for no reason etc. are NOT helping. I know that these are probably not the rule, but that's what's in the news here.

So just to be clear, you are saying that every country in the EU treats suspected terrorism as a matter for the regular police force, with the suspected terrorist given all of the same rights as a person suspected of some other serious crime. Right? I am not contradicting you, I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying. I fully realize the US has a substantial problem in how we are regarded by the rest of the world. I believe there is a great deal to be said in favor of us working from the same page as Europe. I just want to be sure I understand whether the view you express, or that I understand you to express, is actually the European view as it is in fact practiced. Times change, of course, but I imagine you agree that there is no need to go back to the Middle Ages, or anywhere near it, to find practices in Europe to the contrary.

[Winstonm]

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

 

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

 

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

[mike777]

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

 

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

 

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach anyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

 

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

 

I thought waterboarding was a honest interpretation of what is legal, and do not think all of these people should face criminal prosecution. Throw them out with an election, no problem, make this waterboarding decision a criminal prosecution, no.

[Winstonm]

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

 

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

 

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach everyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

 

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

I believe if there was illegal behavior those responsible should be held to the rule of law - the law would have to wave punishment due to mitigating circumstances - you wouldn't pardon yourself.

[mike777]

As far as I know this has happened only about 3 times or so (yes too many) in the last 7 years. Those who did it claim only 3 times I think three is the number, it was not torture and it got useful information that saved thousands of lives.

 

I, for one, simply do not believe these claims - I think they are crap excuses to cover up what should have been considered criminal actions against captives.

 

Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale - I suppose we are to accept that as fact, also?

Ok, we disgree. You basically say everyone knew waterboarding was torture and illegal and everyone involved in the decision who said it ok and everyone who did it should go to jail. Congress failed to impeach everyone involved and those who approved this so they are equally guilty. At some point you are putting just about everyone in jail. I do mean hundreds and hundreds of people including Congress who failed to bring these people to justice.

 

I have not even mentioned the American voting public who kept re electing these folks who would not bring impeachment.

I believe if there was illegal behavior those responsible should be held to the rule of law - the law would have to wave punishment due to mitigating circumstances - you wouldn't pardon yourself.

 

I repeat I think this issue is much more cloudy and less clear when it comes to a criminal trial but I write more below even when the case is more clear, unlike here.

 

 

If nothing else when it this come up in the future and I promise stuff like this will come up time and time again in your lifetime you will not be shocked that no one or almost no one is impeached and no one or almost no one goes to jail. You will not see mass war crimes impeachments. You may see one person or two tried for murder or a war crime but nothing involving this many people as in your example.

 

 

 

 

Just look at Germany or even more so Japan and the war crime trials. Very very few were brought to trial when thousands if not tens of thousands could have by the rule of law. Look at Korea, Vietnam or you pick any war by any country.

[Al_U_Card]

Invaders are only liberators until they are defeated.

[kenberg]

Just to get a little input on how terrorism is dealt with in Europe, we can find the following article in the Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...ed=networkfront

 

What I get out of this article is that definitely MI5 does not torture British citizens. They have them arrested in Pakistan, they question them there, and then they leave the room while the Pakistanis torture them, and then they question them again. This goes on for a year or so. All removal of fingernails is definitely done by the Pakistanis, not MI5. MI5 is opposed to torture.

 

At the least, this may cause us to look skeptically at the assertion that the plot to hijack planes was intercepted simply by standard police methods.

 

I am really not in favor of torturing anyone. I am in favor of getting information from terrorists. We are in desperate need of thinking through what we should and should not do. It seems at least possible to me that the current portrait of America as a bunch of torture hungry nuts and Europe as a bunch of ever so sweet souls who would never ever do such a thing may be a distortion of the truth.

[mike777]

Just to get a  little input on how terrorism is dealt with in Europe, we can find the following article in the Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/2...ed=networkfront

 

What I get out of this article is that definitely MI5 does not torture British citizens. They have them arrested in Pakistan, they question them there, and then they leave the room while the Pakistanis torture them, and then they question them again. This goes on for a year or so. All removal of fingernails is definitely done by the Pakistanis, not MI5. MI5 is opposed to torture.

 

At the least, this may cause us to look skeptically at the assertion that the plot to hijack planes was intercepted simply by standard police methods.

 

I am really not in favor of torturing anyone. I am in favor of getting information from terrorists. We are in desperate need of thinking through what we should and should not do. It seems at least possible to me that the current portrait of America as a bunch of torture hungry nuts and Europe as a bunch of ever so sweet souls who would never ever do such a thing may be a distortion of the truth.

My guess is that even in Pakistan torture is illegal even the torture of the British (who we love and respect...see Ringo).

 

We can only hope the UN does something against Pakistan if true and the people of Pakistan stop this practice of torture.

[blackshoe]

I'm roughly in agreement with you here, and with the post of brothgar as well. However your first two sentences could be construed as "We are so glad you can help us with this information you obtained through torture. Of course we cannot reciprocate because we operate on a higher moral plane than you." It's a little off-putting, but I can live with it. I suspect we will have to live with worse things before this is over.

No doubt we will, but it was not my intention to imply the meaning you attribute to my comments. That kind of assertion by someone using information obtained through torture is just plain silly.

 

What I meant to say was that, given we have information the use of which will save lives, failure to use it, whatever the source, is just plain stupid. I did not mean that we should condone in any way the use of torture to obtain such information. A nation that did so should, imo, be told (verbally and through action) that they haved moved far lower on our "friends list" and are in danger of falling off the bottom of it.

 

Btw, I think Heinlein at his best (eg The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was very good but he got a little batty in his later years (eg Methuselah's Children). Emotionally I accept his general views, practically I would take him with several grains of salt. It was long enough ago when I read his stories, roughly when they came out,  that I am not prepared to defend these comments.

 

Certainly some of Heinlein's writings were, okay, "a little batty". He said so himself. But your timing is off: "Moon" was published in 1966, Methuselah's Children in 1941. Personally, I think (and I think Heinlein agreed) that the best example of "battiness" in his writings was I Will Fear No Evil which was published in 1970, and was, I believe, written while Heinlein was seriously ill.

[kenberg]

I'm roughly in agreement with you here, and with the post of brothgar as well. However your first two sentences could be construed as "We are so glad you can help us with this information you obtained through torture. Of course we cannot reciprocate because we operate on a higher moral plane than you." It's a little off-putting, but I can live with it. I suspect we will have to live with worse things before this is over.

No doubt we will, but it was not my intention to imply the meaning you attribute to my comments. That kind of assertion by someone using information obtained through torture is just plain silly.

 

What I meant to say was that, given we have information the use of which will save lives, failure to use it, whatever the source, is just plain stupid. I did not mean that we should condone in any way the use of torture to obtain such information. A nation that did so should, imo, be told (verbally and through action) that they haved moved far lower on our "friends list" and are in danger of falling off the bottom of it.

 

Btw, I think Heinlein at his best (eg The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was very good but he got a little batty in his later years (eg Methuselah's Children). Emotionally I accept his general views, practically I would take him with several grains of salt. It was long enough ago when I read his stories, roughly when they came out,  that I am not prepared to defend these comments.

 

Certainly some of Heinlein's writings were, okay, "a little batty". He said so himself. But your timing is off: "Moon" was published in 1966, Methuselah's Children in 1941. Personally, I think (and I think Heinlein agreed) that the best example of "battiness" in his writings was I Will Fear No Evil which was published in 1970, and was, I believe, written while Heinlein was seriously ill.

Thanks for the Heinlein correction. As I said, it has been a while. Memory fades.

 

 

I understood your meaning about using results from other who may have used torture to obtain them. Electronic communication is often a bit iffy but I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. My thinkg was more along the 'slippery slope" lines illustrated by the Guardian article I mentioned above. There we have MI5 not torturing anyone. They just come in to the room before the torture and after the torture and ask questions. Then they leave the room and the torture resumes. I would also want to leave the room, probably to go puke somewhere, but I don't think I could convince myself that I was not engaging in torture. It's different than what you were discussing, but it is on the same slope.

 

I realize there have been international conventions defining torture and very possibly we should just say we adhere to their rules and that's that. Not the worst idea in the world. But there are a couple of things that come to mind. On the one side, if someone can escape responsibility by simply leaving the room as the fingernails aer extracted, maybe things need to be sharpened up a bit. On the other end, I am troubled by the thought, if correct, that placing panties on someone's head and extracting their fingernails are treated in the same way. We do need information from captured terrorists. We need to set limits on our actions but treating them with great respect for their sensitivities may be more than required. At any rate, to quote your trooper, I could sleep at night.

 

This is difficult for many reasons, one of them being that intelligence agencies of course don't advertise their activities. It took me fifteen minutes or so to find the Guardian article on the Internet. Given their intention of secrecy this means to me that the actual involvement of intelligence agencies, ours and the Europeans, in torture is apt to be much more substantial. I have no faith in the argument that information obtained in that manner is never of any use. It is done because those doing it believe the information is of use, and they are very likely to be right. So we have a real tiger by the tail. We must set some limits, we must think through what they should be, and we must accept what the consequences will be.

[mycroft]

I have an interesting idea over waterboarding:

 

Anyone who says it isn't torture should be allowed to prove it. We'll just waterboard them for 5 minutes or until they tell us what we want to know (the phrase "waterboarding is torture").

 

If it's just an "enhanced interrogation technique", they should all be able to resist it and not tell a deliberate untruth for 5 minutes, right?

[TimG]

I have an interesting idea over waterboarding:

 

Anyone who says it isn't torture should be allowed to prove it. We'll just waterboard them for 5 minutes or until they tell us what we want to know (the phrase "waterboarding is torture").

 

If it's just an "enhanced interrogation technique", they should all be able to resist it and not tell a deliberate untruth for 5 minutes, right?

If this were a true test, and they used me as the subject, I'm sure many enhanced (and unenhanced) interrogation techniques, would quickly become torture.

[luke warm]

just ask any navy seal or army ranger, they've all undergone it as part of their training... course i'm not sure it's called that

[kenberg]

just ask any navy seal or army ranger, they've all undergone it as part of their training... course i'm not sure it's called that

A while back a guy wrote in to the local rag (Washington Post) mentioning that he had undergone waterboarding as part of his training. I think he was a SEAL. I took his word for it but it is good to have independent confirmation. He said he talked. I definitely took his word for that!

 

These are things that I (happily) know too little about to have a worthwhile opinion on specifics. In general terms, a technique that gets people top blab but does no lasting physical or psychological harm (if that's the case) is not in the same category as pulling out fingernails.smashing kneecaps, or attaching electrodes to genitalia, at least in my opinion. Well, perhaps it is, legally, but it isn't to me, morally.

 

 

We need something we can live with. We need to preserve our humanity, we need to preserve ourselves. There is a clash, unfortunately. Or at least so it seems to me. I'm in favor of erring, as we no doubt must, on the side of humanity but I believe this could lead to some unpleasant consequences and I get impatient with people who see the choices as being oh so easy. In either direction.

[Winstonm]

We need something we can live with. We need to preserve our humanity, we need to preserve ourselves. There is a clash, unfortunately. Or at least so it seems to me. I'm in favor of erring, as we no doubt must, on the side of humanity but I believe this could lead to some unpleasant consequences and I get impatient with people who see the choices as being oh so easy. In either direction

 

Well said, Ken, and I agree that it is a must we err on the human side - those who would use inhumane techniques to solicit information have simply been watching too much 24 IMO. It is never so black and white that gathering information from one particular person can stop a disaster.

 

There are two main falacies in the argument for: 1) if you use inhumane techniques on a suspect, you are punishing that person without a prior conviction, and 2), without legal recourse for the innocent, you do not have rule of law, and you have moved not only into inhumane actions but have also adopted lawlessness to justify those actions.