Torture, Accountability, and American Progress
Erica Williams, who works at CAP and CAPAF as Deputy Director of Campus Progress, was apparently on CNN on Friday and said the following about torture investigations:
The American people right now are actually not interested in this sideshow and this discussion. The American people are interested in looking forward — nobody is concerned anymore with what the Bush administration was doing and did. We decided it was torture. Conservatives may or may not disagree. None of that matters at this point and time.
After reading this critique from Jane Hamsher and especially this from Glenn Greenwald I wanted to make clear that that’s not a sentiment I agree with.
For one thing, to the best of my knowledge it’s not factually accurate to say that the American people don’t want an investigation. But beyond that, while public opinion is a relevant consideration when thinking about how to approach issues, part of what we do in both our c(3) and c(4) capacities is try to shape public opinion. And the fact of the matter is that some form of accountability for what happened in the past is important. I’m not, personally, all that enthusiastic about the notion of trying to conduct criminal prosecutions but I think something on a “truth commission” model and serious efforts to bring professional sanctions against John Yoo and Jay Bybee would be a good idea.
At any rate, CAP/AF has done a whole bunch of work on this topic. Here’s Senior Fellow William Schultz arguing that “Torture or Not, It’s Illegal and Wrong”. Here’s our CEO John Podesta calling for the impeachment of Jay Bybee. Here’s a recent Progress Report on right-wing distractions aimed at preventing accountability and ThinkProgress’ comprehensive work on torture. And here’s Ken Gude (whose lead I tend to follow on these issues), our associate director for international rights and responsibility, calling for a thorough and formal investigation of Bush-era torture.
130 Responses to “Torture, Accountability, and American Progress”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
62% want investigations.
Perhaps one of our resident Republican/torture apologists can answer me the following question:
Does that prove that 62% of a Americans a rabid Democratic partisans?
Or does it prove that support for investigations has nothing to do with partisanship?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Of course an independent panel and criminal investigations are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I’m fine with Congress empowering a special panel with subpoena powers to speed things along, but only without the power to issue grants of transactional immunity (use immunity would be fine). Because you should only issue grants of transactional immunity if they are strictly necessary to get the truth out, and it has become apparent that eventually the truth is going to get out anyway.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Because you should only issue grants of transactional immunity if they are strictly necessary to get the truth out, and it has become apparent that eventually the truth is going to get out anyway.
Well duh. The truth is already in the administration’s possession. The only question is whether they’re going to do the right thing.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I’m not, personally, all that enthusiastic about the notion of trying to conduct criminal prosecutions
Why not? Do you disagree that crimes were committed?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
SqueakyRat,
First, to clarify, by the truth “getting out”, I mean to the public.
Second, the Administration may not have in its possession the entire truth–that depends on what exactly has been documented, and there may well be various pieces of information that can only be gained from witness testimony.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yeah, plenty of so-called ‘liberals’ thought torture was wrong before Obama told them to get over it. Then they became rabid bushies telling us we hate America and the soldiers because we believe that there is a difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that transcends the differences between ‘Republicans’ and ‘Democrats.
For the record, I do hate everyone who has tortured. I don’t care what sacrifices they have made. I do not care what they have been through. They had a choice, and they chose evil. I hate everyone who sides with them on that choice. Hell, I hate everyone who doesn’t hate them. I hate everyone who wants to forgive them, and I hate everyone (including Matt) who thinks evil on this level can (and especially those form who this is ’should’) go unpunished.
I don’t just want this people prosecuted, I want them lined up against a wall and shot.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Why not? Do you disagree that crimes were committed?
Maybe Matt wants to check with Oprah first.
In other words, I suspect he cares more about the political implications than whether or not crimes have been committed.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
If Gallup includes a “Neither” option then they should’ve included an “Either” option. This poll would be much better if they did so.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Hell, I don’t even want them shot. I want to be the one who personally shoots them in the head. I also don’t really want them lined up against a wall, I want them to kneel down and look in my eyes when I shoot them. I want them to know what it feels like to be hurt by someone who has no regard for them as human beings.
That’s what they deserve. That’s what they have done to other people. That’s what justice in it’s purest form. They have to be made to know what it’s like to suffer. society, as a whole, has to be made to know that there is a price for this. not some lame ‘reconciliation’ committee designed to protect the assess of the elite. If someone like Matt was in charge after WW2, there would have been no prosecutions.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
If the Obama administration does not prosecute war crimes, they become war criminals themselves. They don’t have a choice in terms of the law. It isn’t fuzzy on this point. In other words, if Obama continues to cover up war crimes he should be impeached and prosecuted.
The rule of law is inconvenient like that.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Matt, you’re fired.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Re soullite
Actually, burning at the stake might be more appropriate. Shooting is over too soon.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Re #11
A good idea.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The whole game here is to shift this thing from legal to political. Treat it is a criminal matter – most of the torturers go to jail; treat it as a political matter – they get away scott-free, without a doubt. Citing opinion polls (whether pro- or against) is an attempt to frame it as a matter of politics.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
With all this talk of the rule of law, it is worth perusing Victoria Toensing’s article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday actually discussing the statutes. Does anyone here realize those procedures were legal, and as circumscribed as we could make them. Don’t forget that the information garnered also unequivocally saved a lot of American lives.
===================================
May 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Of course we’ll need to waterboard them first, to make sure they give us evidence against all their co-conspirators. But who cares, right? They are bad people, and the principle we are standing up for is the right to do whatever you want to bad people.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
With all this talk of the rule of law, it is worth perusing Victoria Toensing’s article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday actually discussing the statutes. Does anyone here realize those procedures were legal . . .
No they weren’t. Toensing merely reiterates the erroneous “reasoning” of the memos (although rationalization would be more accurate than reasoning), and she has long been writing this sort of legal hackery in defense of these people.
But I’ll be happy to have these issues settled in federal court.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
DTM, 17. So you can cite the statute under which these are crimes?
Claiming the actions were criminal under the Geneva Convention as ‘war crimes’ doesn’t get it either. The Geneva Conventions, derived from the gentlemens’ agreements of old, dead, white 19th Century men, refer to uniformed forces. The US is also not a signatory. So, please look elsewhere, and let us all know where you find the law that was violated.
======================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I’d say 62% refutes Erica Williams. She might want to think more before speaking from her think-tank poistion.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Snowman, 19. Well, Erica Williams on Friday, and the Gallup poll almost 4 months earlier. I’d say you can’t draw the conclusion you’ve just drawn.
=====================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
You all remember when Barack Obama gave that speech telling the country torture wasn’t wrong, right?
You know, that was when liberals stopped denouncing torture.
You all remember that, right?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
DTM, Torture and Capital Punishment are two entirely difference subjects. I’m sorry if you don’t understand the difference between the two.
These people have to die, because they have lost their socialization and represent a clear danger both to our people and to our society as a whole. They will torture people here if you let them become cops, or teachers, or correctional officers. They will codify torture if you allow them to become politicians and leaders. They have lost their humanity in a way that standard soldiers rarely do, and we have difficulty enough re-integrating them into our society.
Those who ordered torture have to die because they are the ones truly responsible for the corruption and death of the torturers themselves. It has to be cold and brutal because it has to create a horrifying spectacle to act as a deterrent in future situations. If we allow this to go unremarked and unpunished, then it will spread. There will be no more good men in our intelligence apparatus, there will only be torturers and sadists.
We’ve killed people in this country for FAR lesser crimes of a much lesser degree of brutality.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Don’t forget that the information garnered also unequivocally saved a lot of American lives.”
There is not one atom of evidence to support this assertion.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
DTM, 17. So you can cite the statute under which these are crimes?
Yes.
First, contra Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, Toensing, et al, these procedures used in combination as authorized violated 18 USC 2340A because they did inflict “severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” as they were specifically intended to do.
Second, contra Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, Toensing, et al, these procedures as authorized violated 18 USC 2441 (the War Crimes Act) because they constituted grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
In anticipatory response to applying the second statute, you claimed, “The Geneva Conventions, derived from the gentlemens’ agreements of old, dead, white 19th Century men, refer to uniformed forces. The US is also not a signatory.”
Neither of those claims is true, and the Supreme Court has already specifically held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to these detainees, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
Anyway, like I said, I am fine with having these issues decided in the federal courts.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Joel, 23. Oh yes, there is evidence. The evidence is in the memos that Cheney requested, that Obama has blocked the release of, and that the CIA will leak if they want to or have to. Heh.
===============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The US is required, by domestic law and treaty, to prosecute crimes of torture if sufficient evidence exists.
Not a truth commission, criminal prosecution.
Glenn Greenwald’s piece on this is good.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Re kim
Just for the information of the other commentors here, the clown calling himself kim is actually a gentleman named Mark Marano, best known as a shill for Senator Imhofe and one of the main forces behind the swift boaters of 2004 infame.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Joe, I remember that 6 months ago it wouldn’t even be argued here if we ’should’ punish torturers. Some may not have wanted to waste political capital on it, but they at least acknowledge that they should be punished even if they wouldn’t be. There wasn’t ANYONE on the left arguing that releasing some photos would ‘endanger our troops’ or any other bushie argument.
Then Obama made some decisions, made the above argument, and half the blogosphere ran with it. A whole lot of folks on the so-called ‘left’ decided that their partisan affiliation was more important than their moral obligations. Are you actually going to deny that?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
DTM, Torture and Capital Punishment are two entirely difference subjects. I’m sorry if you don’t understand the difference between the two.
Actually, I think the impulse often comes from the same place. And this is particularly apparent when a person writes something like this:
You are fantasizing about torturing them before you kill them. I’m sorry if you don’t understand that, because that makes you no better than them.
It has to be cold and brutal because it has to create a horrifying spectacle to act as a deterrent in future situations.
Torturing people as a form of punishment is still torture. Your desire to be “brutal” for this claimed higher purpose is no more morally or legally excusable than theirs.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
DTM, 24. Interesting. The argument in court may well hang on the meaning of ’severe’ and ‘grave’. Perhaps we shall see.
=============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“Oh yes, there is evidence. The evidence is in the memos that Cheney requested, that Obama has blocked the release of, and that the CIA will leak if they want to or have to. Heh.”
As I said, there is not one atom of evidence that the information garnered also unequivocally saved a lot of American lives. Cheney is lying and so are you.
You got nothin’.
Smarter trolls, please.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Its not clear to me what who or what this sentence refers to: “I wanted to make clear that that’s not a sentiment I agree with…”. Also as I read Glenn Greenwald he is taking Ms. Williams to task for mindreading and pretending to know what “the america public” wants or doesn’t want depsite significant polls to the contrary. I got the impression agrees the CAP/AF do great work. To my mind Glenn Greenwald gets upset when pundits (left, right, center) pretend to know what the american public is thinking and then spew opinions based on that pretension.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
As for as saving lives goes, a little of that quickly becomes a rationale for anything you want. Why not just shoot gangsters in the street? See a crack dealer. Bang. Find someone who tinkered with a catalytic converter? Bang. Cigarette dealers? Bang. People who add trans-fats to food? Bang. Nitrites in bacon? Bang. Just saving lives, folks. Move along.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
SLC, 27. You make a guess, but a bad one. I’m vastly complimented to be compared with the wonderful Marc Morano who has a great deal more energy than I do, and a wonderful aggregating blog, climatedepot.com
I’ve not had a great opportunity to compare my knowledge with his, but if I had to guess, I’m a little more sophisticated on the nuances of the climatology arguments and he’s a great deal more sophisticated about the political and social arguments. But, thanks for the compliment.
In fact, there is a great deal I don’t know about climate. Nor does anyone else, but there are probably hundreds of people with a greater understanding of climate than I have, perhaps even thousands. But probably not tens of thousands. I’ve studied it in depth and at length. Pats self on back.
=============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Well, my understanding is that it could prove extremely difficult to secure convictions and that the top dogs would likely get off.
Why do you think this?
Despite what the water-carriers for the Bush Administration are claiming, these cases would be very straightforward. Indeed, if you imagine these were cases of foreigners doing these things to U.S. citizens, no one would have much doubt about our ability to get convictions.
So basically, it all comes down the possibility of jury nullification. Which is a problem, but not necessarily an insurmountable one.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I love how some on the Left are now arguing that we can’t prosecute war criminals because it will make things politically more difficult for Obama and his grand agenda.
1) I was under the assumption that the lynch-pin of Obama’s agenda was returning the rule of law to the US and ending the politicization of the Justice Department.
2) Deciding whether to investigate and prosecute criminal activity on the basis on the political effects of those investigations/prosecutions is the definition of politicizing the Justice Department.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Joel, 31. In fact, you got nothing. I can’t remember his name but there was a writer at National Review Online a few weeks ago who destroyed the WaPo article claimng that there had been nothing gained from the intelligence. Since the memos are not released, I’m unable to prove that, but I strongly doubt that Cheney is bluffing. He could so easily be disproven by releasing the memos, and Obama refuses to do that.
================================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Perhaps we shall see.
Fair enough–hopefully we will.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
SLC, 27. Heh, I can argue that the Swift Boaters of 2004 have never been proven wrong, too. That book sold 800,000 copies, some of them to white, male, landowners, and it changed the election. How come Kerry would not speak to reporters for a month after its release? And how come he still hasn’t allowed free distribution of the contents of his record, after signing the 180?
===========================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
When someone objects to an action by prophesizing that “it will be difficult to do” or “it will cause discord” or some such, you can be sure they want to avoid the extant reality.
CAP, John Podesta and Obama all suck on this issue and the media diverts from the point that it is a violation of law to not prosecute.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Jim, 36. Note that Obama is now trying to fire a US Attorney investigating Edwards. You really are gullible, son.
========================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
. . . but I strongly doubt that Cheney is bluffing. He could so easily be disproven by releasing the memos, and Obama refuses to do that.
Various key claims by Cheney have been disproven over and over again in the past as the truth as come out, but countering Cheney is not among Obama’s chief concerns right now. Eventually, though, I suspect the full truth to come out–meaning not just Cheney’s cherry-picked memos, but all the available material, including the 2004 CIA Inspector General investigation which reportedly found no conclusive evidence to support Cheney’s claim (despite Cheney repeatedly trying to intervene in that investigation).
May 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
37. kim, facts re: obama, cia, and release of “pro-cheney” torture. The aclu has a current case using FOIA to get same documents cheney wants. It is not the case that obama has the power to release them. They are not being released to a pending legal request. the ACLU’s FOIA is what got the torture memos released. The FOIA by the ACLU preceded Obama’s presidency. So the idea that Obama is releasing cia/olc docs to make cheney look bad and refusing to release the one’s that “make cheney look good” is right out of El Rushbo’s and O’Reilly’s behind. When the rest of the CIA memo’s come out it will be because of the persistent effort of the ACLU and their members. Keep your healthy skepticism awake and alert at all times and always google before you comment.
Useful link here http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Jeffrey, 33. You introduce a point I’ve been trying to make for a long time. Unless waterboarding is highly regulated, and available as means of interrogation when time is of the essence and the potential value of the intelligence gained high enough, then it will be abused. Think of it this way. It is creating the fear of imminent death. Do you seriously think combat troops, who face death and the fear of imminent death regularly and with primacy, will always refrain from inflicting the ‘fear of imminent death’ on a captive, while their own comrades are still in danger of imminent death? Oh, sure, in an ideal world, with ideal troops, such a thing won’t happen, but I’m talking about real life and real combat, here.
If enhanced interrogation is not available, and highly regulated, then it will be occasionally abused, almost inevitably. Waterboarding should be Safe, Legal, and Rare, as it apparently was under the Bush Administration, with Nancy Pelosi’s understanding and consent. She was not unreasonable then. But she’s a lying hypocrite now.
=====================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jim, 36. Note that Obama is now trying to fire a US Attorney investigating Edwards. You really are gullible, son.
1) Going back to Reagan, incoming administrations always replace many US attorneys with their own appointees.
2) As the OIG and OPR found, Bush fired attorneys in the middle of his term for purely partisan political reasons — an unprecedented act.
3) Claiming that #1 and #2 are equivalent, pace Hannity, is either deliberately misleading, incredibly stupid, or “gullible.” I suspect all three.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
mickster, 43. Naw, Obama specifically refused to release the memos that Cheney specifically asked for. You are not completely wrong; we’re just talking apples and lemons, here.
==================================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Hmm. kim ≠ Morano, but Morano is “wonderful” and has a “wonderful blog,” the address of which kim helpfully provides.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Jim, 45. Until the left objected to Bush firing US Attorneys, there were no objections that a President couldn’t fire political appointees of his administration. In fact, having that power is a liberal argument. It is important to keep parts of the Justice Department under political control, subject to review by the voters every four years. Think about it.
===========================
May 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
WELL WHY DOES CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS’S ERICA WILLIAMS SAY WE SHOULD ‘FOREGIVE AND FORGET’ THE BUSH ADMINISTRASION’S TORTURE WAR CRIMES?
WELL BECASUE IT WOULD BE TOO HARD FOR HER TO MASTERBATE TO HER FAVORITE FANTASEES OF ARAB’S GETTING WATER-BOARDED IF SHE HAD ALOT OF BLOOD ON HER HAND’S.
JUST A NORMAL GUY [THE ORIGINAL]
May 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
SqueakyRat, 47. I admire Marc Morano and I read his site nearly daily. He has been in the forefront of the political battle to expose the hoax of CO2=AGW. But I think I’ve delineated the difference between the two of us quite adequately. Besides, I think I’ve been in this war longer than he has, and have commented elsewhere a lot. For instance, some of the bitter alarmists at Andy Revkin’s DotEarth blog last year started calling it DotKim. Oh, by the way, there is a thread on DotEarth, last year’s mammoth AGU thread of late January in which Marc and I both commented. You can see me disagreeing with him over one matter. I know that is not proof, but take it for what it’s worth. Meanwhile, I’m beginning to sound like I’m protesting overly much. Nonetheless, the cognoscenti among the skeptics know we are distinct personalities. They’ve never seen a decent Haiku from him, for instance.
==================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
it is worth perusing Victoria Toensing’s article
…if you feel the need to vomit. Let’s not forget that her last parsing of the statutes exonerated convicted felon Scooter Libby of all wrongdoing.
kim: stupid or craven? Or just another incarnation of an old troll?
May 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Unless waterboarding is highly regulated, and available as means of interrogation when time is of the essence and the potential value of the intelligence gained high enough, then it will be abused.
Not only is torture ineffective at quickly obtaining true information in such a situation, it is counterproductive because it undermines the potentially useful techniques. Accordingly, this is actually one of the situations in which simple prudence would dictate very strict and well-enforced anti-torture laws, namely to prevent ignorant people from screwing up interrogations in these situations by torturing out of frustration.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
DTM, 52. In fact, torture is generally disparaged for its inability to get good actionable intelligence. Gaining the trust and co-operation of the detainee is much more reliable for getting good information. But that takes time, and when time is of the essence, waterboarding is a smart bomb to the Central Nervous System, google ‘diving reflex’, and is demonstrably capable of getting accurate, actionable intelligence. You are simply misinformed. It is quick and useful. That’s why it needs to be Safe, Legal, and Rare.
======================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
46. Kim: Check out this link re: whoo is blocking cheney’s memo request:
http://osmoothie.com/2009/05/14/obama-refuses-to-declassify-memos-which-cheney-claims-prove-torture-works/
Excerpted below:
The Obama administration has turned down former Vice President Dick Cheney’s request for the declassification of two CIA reports on the effectiveness of the Agency’s detainee program, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. A letter dated May 7, 2009, from the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, Delores M. Nelson, rejected Cheney’s request because the documents he has requested are involved in a Freedom of Information Act court battle.
“In researching the information in question, we have discovered that it is currently the subject of pending FOIA litigation (Bloche v. Department of Defense, Amnesty International v. Central Intelligence Agency). Therefore, the document is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review,” Nelson wrote in the letter to the National Archives, the agency responsible for handling Cheney’s request.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Until the left objected to Bush firing US Attorneys, there were no objections that a President couldn’t fire political appointees of his administration
That’s straw man #1. No one is claiming that Presidents can’t legally and properly fire political appointees of their administrations. Bush didn’t do that.
It is important to keep parts of the Justice Department under political control, subject to review by the voters every four years.
That’s straw man #2. Parts of the Justice Department are under political control. One example: new administrations generally replace US Attorneys with their own appointees (sound familiar?). That is an accepted practice. What is not an accepted practice is firing attorneys because they won’t launch bogus prosecutions against members of the other political party. There is proper “political control” and obviously improper and illegal “political control.” Think about it.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
For those of you support not prosecuting: how do you suggest preventing a repeat occurrence of the lawbreaking? One reason for prosecution of criminal behavior (in general) is punishment. The other, equally important reason, is deterrence.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Yglesias says:
Why not criminal prosecutions? Well, my understanding is that it could prove extremely difficult to secure convictions and that the top dogs would likely get off.
I guess this means extremely difficult endeavors should never be undertaken, regardless of their importance.
And I don’t think that whether or not any individual person serves jail time is ultimately the most important issue here. What I really want to see is official, public accounting for what happened and official, public accounting that it was wrong.
Because a “public accounting that it was wrong” is just as powerful of a disincentive to those who might commit future war crimes as criminal prosecution and penalties. Why wasn’t a “a public accounting that it was wrong” sufficient to deal with other war criminals, such as the Nazis?
Keep on walking, Yglesias. What a chickenshit, morally bankrupt position you espouse.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
pseudo, 51. Naw, Her analysis merely pointed out that Val Plame was not ‘covert’ under the relevant statutes. The rest of what you say is silly hyperbole.
=======================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Not only is torture ineffective at quickly obtaining true information in such a situation,
Prove it.
it is counterproductive because it undermines the potentially useful techniques.
Prove it.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
So could we prosecute some people for actions that led to the death of a few hundred thousand Iraqis, please?
I still don’t get this: torture is regarded as the most outrageous crime on earth, but killing people is fine because, oh I don’t know, it’s war after all and war is hell and everybody was just following orders …
May 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
mickster, 54. Obama could declassify it if he wanted to do so.
Jim, 55. Hah, hah. If you weren’t biased you’d see how little sense you make.
TimH, 56. As I suggested; make waterboarding an available, but highly regulated procedure. It should be Safe, Legal, and Rare. I haven’t even brought up ticking bombs, but there are scenarios when reasonable people might recommend or condone it. Like Nancy Pelsosi did when she knew that Abu Z was resisting giving up critical information.
===========================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@novakant
I still don’t get this: torture is regarded as the most outrageous crime on earth, but killing people is fine because, oh I don’t know, it’s war after all and war is hell and everybody was just following orders
In war you have combatants fighting combatants, theoretically a “fair fight.” With torture, you have defenseless captives at the mercy of their torturers.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
You all act like the rule of law still exists. It doesn’t. The police shoot people in the back and get a pass. The President has peoples penises sliced with scalpels, and nobody cares. Obama spends all his political capital funneling money to the financial industry, and half of you cheer.
The rule of law is non-existent. All that exists is the rule of power right now. The law ONLY applies to you if you are powerless. Who really cares about following laws that have no real authority any more. If ou want to instill a respect for the law in our elite? Then you will have instill a fear of lawlessness in them. Until then, they will not abide by the law because nobody is forcing them to.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
soullite, 62. Don’t be so discouraged; we’ll get to see his birth certificate eventually, as embarrassing or disqualifying as it may be.
========================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Don’t be so discouraged; we’ll get to see his birth certificate eventually, as embarrassing or disqualifying as it may be.
Did you read that off your teleprompter, you moron?
May 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
the idea that prosecutions would be tough is ridiculous.
as someone who defended criminals for a dozen years, i can safely say that if i had a client, such as dick cheney, who’d admitted what he has already admitted on the public record, i’d sincerely recommend that he start looking seriously at plea agreements.
either that or a strategy aimed at jury nullification.
but there is more than enough evidence in the public record already to try and convict the guys at the highest levels for any number of crimes.
and the very thought that prosecutors might back away from charging someone because it would be “tough” to prosecute is laughable. one of the principal strategies of the prosecutors i knew was to first charge and then use the public pressure associated with the charges to squeeze a plea agreement out of a defendant who may have had a decent defense. pile on a couple of dozen charges and let the defendant sort them all out. and in this particular case, there is already so much evidence in the public record that they could get very creative with the charging document and probably would not have to squeeze very much.
this is about political will, and it has very little to do with any perceived weakness of any potential charges.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
tsg, Hah, hah, hah. Got ya’, didn’t I? I suspect there is something on there that would show up his books to be the fabrication they are. And, there is a distant possibility that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. More important, to my mind, is what nationality he attended Occidental College as, and as a citizen of what nation he visited Pakistan in 1981. Why don’t you check that out for us?
============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
tsg, you might have to check with the CIA to get that information, though. File a FOIA request, why dontcha?
=======================================
May 17th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Jeffrey, see my above post. That’s why. It’s not about punishing the guilty, it’s about justice. Not just in this matter, but a return to a just society over-all. That can’t happen until the elite understand that lawlessness can be a danger to them. They think the law is something other people have to follow, so we need to show them what it’s like to be the other people. We need to show those who would follow them out of fear or deference that there are other things to be afraid of.
Gangsters are criminals and treated as such. The elite are criminals and they treat each-other like nobles. The law won’t touch them. Hell, they drive cars into crowds of people and then insult their victims and get away with it.
That’s the difference here.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
64. kim There was a challenge mounted by the CIA to not release the documents despite the FOIA. Bush and Cheney could have released the documents when the FOIA letigation was first brought. Why not let the legal case run its course. Cheney/bush liked secrecy above all else. Now let them spin in the wind due to their own excesses.
Your comment re: birth certificates is so transparent. Will the FEMA trailers as concentration camp be your next comment? Of the re-education camps? Or the swine flu is really al-qaeda pandemic attack on the US or there are black helicopters following you around or the Dener airport is really a concentration camp for when the UN takes over the United States?
May 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
In war you have combatants fighting combatants, theoretically a “fair fight.” With torture, you have defenseless captives at the mercy of their torturers.
The operative word being “theoretically”, it certainly doesn’t apply to the Iraq war – and the question of jus ad bellum cannot be just left out either.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
mickster, 70. No need to rave and froth at the mouth. Obama is using the court case as an excuse to not release the memos Cheney wants. He could however, declassify them anyway. His releasing two memos from among those requested would not weaken the case for the rest of them. I’m pleased to see that you are reminding us that he is continuing Bush Administration policy here.
And about the birth certificate. It would be extremely simple for him to release it. So why does he spend over a million dollars in a so far successful attempt to not release it? Got a good answer for that?
==============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
kim, 72. I’ve got a good reason to spend a million dollars to avoid releasing them. There is something embarrassing on them and he is entitled to his privacy, like any private citizen. The counter-argument is that the public is entitled to see if he is eligible for the office he seeks, as the public is about any office seeker. So, I’d be glad to see it settled in court.
============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Why not criminal prosecutions, Matt?
You say, your understanding is that it could prove extremely difficult to secure convictions, huh?
I suppose it’s okay to bury our heads in the sand and forget that foot-soldiers like Lynndie England get court martialed, while the monsters who approved torture at the highest level and turned America into a nation of war criminals AS A POLICY get off scot-free.
Unbelievable.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Bill Tweed, 74. I like your attempt to garner sympathy for ‘Foot Soldier’ Lynie England. Her intent was to humiliate and not to gather information, and she did it in plain violation of the law. Those ‘leaders’ you castigate had the intention of seeking information, within the law, which ended up saving lives. I’m appalled at your ability to twist reality to fit your fantastic vision.
=============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Again. See “Standard Operating Procedure” by Errol Morris.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Just adding another voice here to complain about the weak arguments made in the “update.”
First, meta: this is an important issue, and arguing against prosecutions — especially if you have an important place on the left, as Yglesias does now — deserves more than a short 6-sentence paragraph.
Second, substantively:
1) Punishment is a deterrent. That is, the most important point is in shaping future actions. Even if convictions aren’t secured, anyone who in the future feels like these guys *might* have been convicted will be somewhat deterred — far more so than if prosecutions are always ruled out when high-officials commit crimes. That is, I assume Yglesias is granting that crimes were committed — just that certain crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted, right?
2) Man, it would really suck as a country to have imprisoned 25% of our black male population, and then decide that it’s not worth prosecuting important white guys for *torturing*. I’m about as thoroughly against punishment as justice as you can get, but damn, the one place it really seems to make sense is for high officials committing heinous crimes. Seriously bad guys do not deserve to get away with it, regardless of the relative (but orthogonal) importance of getting the truth out.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
@novacant
Your points are good ones and I agree with them. My point is that torture is always wrong. There is no such thing as jus ad tormentum, whereas war can sometimes be justified, albeit very rarely.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[waterboarding] is demonstrably capable of getting accurate, actionable intelligence.
Nonsense: waterboarding is no different from any other form of torture. There is no such demonstration to the contrary, and that claim is also controverted by the known facts of this case: if somehow waterboarding had the magical ability to make people accurately tell whatever information you wanted to get, there would have been no need to waterboard anyone 80 or 180 times in a month.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Much as I would like to see criminal prosecutions 1) I don’t think they will happen and 2) They might achieve nothing.
I would like to see a truth commission with names named and shamed once and for all, foreheads tattooed with a scarlet ‘T’.
As for the eager little fellators Bybee and Yoo, disbar them and send them to the soup line with Alberto.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
There will be prosecutions.
This present scandal goes much deeper than Watergate. Watergate was mostly about a White House cover-up of petty crimes, and still there were numerous prosecutions and convictions. It is quite possible Nixon himself would have done jail time if not for the Ford pardon.
This scandal is about the White House actively torturing people to illicit confessions. Only a future Obama pardon will keep Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al out of jail.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
DTM, 79. Meh, we disagree. I probably should have said that waterboarding is more capable of getting accurate, actionable intelligence than other time sensitive methods. No method is going to always work. That’s kind of a silly standard by which to judge waterboarding. And did it get good intelligence which stopped plots to kill Americans? Well let’s see the memos that Cheney wants in the public record, and Obama doesn’t.
==============================================
May 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Matt, this clarification about CAP’s stance on accountability for torture is very welcome. Public repudiation of Williams’ remarks from someone at the top of the organization would be even more welcome.
Given that CAP has a boatload of fellows and staffers, several with expertise on the issues covered in the CNN appearance, and that Williams not only lacks relevant experience but also disagrees with the organization’s position on investigation and public accountability for torture, why do you think she was chosen to represent the CAP on national television discussing it?
May 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
It would be interesting to read somewhere a full debate regarding prosecutions. Are convictions the sole purpose of prosecutions? I mean, does a Truth Commission necessarily get at the truth better than prosecutions? Can prosecutions get at the truth? Are prosecutions a waste of time if any of them turn up “not guilty”? Can prosecutions that ultimately fail lead to reform in the law so that those acts would be now illegal and prosecutable? Is a Commission the best forum?
I don’t know any of these answers but I havent read a really good in depth debate about why prosecutions are not the right way to go, it is often brushed aside as not serious.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Since the memos are not released, I’m unable to prove that, but I strongly doubt that Cheney is bluffing.”
LOL!
Your doubts concerning Cheney’s motivations are not evidence, kim.
There is not one atom of evidence that even one American life was saved by torture.
OTOH, the use of torture-obtained “evidence” to bolster the phony link between al Qaeda and Saddam *did* needlessly destroy over 4000 American lives as a result of the unnecessary US invasion and military occupation of Iraq.
Smarter trolls, please!
May 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Matthew, good for you for distinguishing your position from Erica’s. Well done.
May 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Water boarding is not designed to get accurate information. Water boarding is designed to get women to confess to consorting with the devil and men to confess to being able to turn into wolves. Please, explain to me how a procedure invented specifically to force false confessions and accusations from people can yield accurate information.
May 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The torture was aimed at getting false confessions to justify the illegal invasion and wholesale destruction of Iraq. I want the war to be prosecuted as well.
May 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Please, explain to me how a procedure invented specifically to force false confessions and accusations from people can yield accurate information.
Wait. Are you saying that those people weren’t witches?
May 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Reading through this thread, I can’t help but note that “kim” has not provided a single accurate fact that was obtained through torture.
On the other hand, “kim” now admits to being a birfer.
So…I guess that’s that for “kim.”
May 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I will always be profoundly grateful to the torture-loving, Cheney-apologist Republicans (but I repeat myself) for indulging in this effort to smear Nancy Pelosi.
Regardless of the fact that their entire argument is bullshit, they have, without provocation and entirely of their own volition, permanently forfeited the argument that torture investigations and the prosecutions that follow from them are a partisan witch hunt. One of the most politically potent arguments against investigating and prosecuting the Bush administration torture criminals is not permanently off the table.
Repeat after me, everyone: “Partisan payback? Oh, heavens no! Why, people have raised a lot of questions about Nancy Pelosi’s knowledge about what was being done. We need to look at everyone. We need to know the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.”
Thanks, GOPers! This is the most brilliant political gambit since you spent the two months before the election telling voters that, in the midst of an economic collapse, your opponent wants to “spread the wealth.”
Keep up the good work!
May 17th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
It would be nice to see Think Progress/CAP address this issue of somebody identified with the organization going on CNN and spouting right-wing talking points. Was she representing herself or Podesta (aka Obama ally?)
May 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“What I really want to see is official, public accounting for what happened and official, public accounting that it was wrong.”
Wouldn’t a public trial and conviction of those responsible for creating the torture regime nicely serve both purposes? It might even make future torturers hesitate before creating their own torture programs.
May 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Two-tiered justice is no justice at all.
People were tortured and murdered. No regular person or group of people would be able to avoid prosecution and politicians should be held to a higher standard, not lower, than the citizenry.
May 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
[...] UPDATE II: CAP’s Matt Yglesias disassociates himself from Williams’ comments, noting that (1) ”it’s not factually accurate to say that the American people don’t want an investigation”; (2) part of CAP’s stated goal is “try to shape public opinion,” not blindly follow it; (3) “some form of accountability for what happened in the past is important”; and (4) other CAP officials have called for investigations and proceedings against Bush DOJ lawyers [though, to my knowledge, all of them, including Yglesias, oppose (or at least have serious reservations about) prosecutions regardless of whether Bush officials broke the law]. [...]
May 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Why weren’t you are someone else on CNN to represent the organization, since your purpose is to shape public opinion. Instead, your organization misrepresented public opinion, thus shaping it. It’s disgraceful, all the more so because of its contradiction with the views of those in your organization that write on the topic.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
No method is going to always work. That’s kind of a silly standard by which to judge waterboarding.
It is not just that there is no reasonable expectation that torture will work in the hypothetical timeframe, although that is enough to eviscerate the ends-justify-the-means argument. It is also that torture would actually be counterproductive, because it undermines the techniques that might work in that timeframe. And there is no excuse for doing something illegal, immoral, and counterproductive.
But to be blunt, we are way beyond silly hypotheticals now. The evidence of what actually happened is coming fairly steadily now, and the bottomline is that torture was used because the people being interrogated just weren’t saying what Cheney et al wanted to hear, which was that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda. Aand when they finally did break and say what Cheney et al wanted to hear, it was not only false, but used to help justify a war which has cost the United States greatly in terms of money and lives (not to mention the lives of other people), and undermined the long term security of the United States.
So there will be no defending that actual use of torture in the end. Which is why I am not really worried about jury nullification: I suspect the problem is going to be more a matter of finding a jury willing to give them a fair hearing, as opposed to finding a jury willing to convict.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
[...] this distortion is inaccurate on its face, too. Polling suggests a significant majority favors either criminal prosecutions or an independent panel …. Can 62% of Americans really be the far left? Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The [...]
May 17th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Matt is just Erica lite. He wants a political investigation, but no prosecutions. As Greenwald has endlessly pointed out, the establishment assumption is that prosecution of crimes is obligatory for the unwashed masses but discretionary for the elite. I think Yglesias knows that’s bs, but he choses to take the elitist position because it suites his agenda.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Close to two thirds of the American people favor investigations of some kind into torture. Interesting. Torture investigations have more public support than Obama does. Does that mean according to Erica that most Americans regard Obama as a ’side show’?
May 17th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Yglesias,
I don’t care how many CAP/AF staffers have “one a whole bunch of work on this topic.”
So what? Unless and until I hear John Podesta explaining in full why Erica Williams, presumably with CAP’s assent, is closing ranks with Peggy Noonan, presuming to speak (inacurately) for the American People, and putting petty policy matters ahead of core American principles — I have to believe CAP is laying down some cover for Prznt. Obama.
This kinda thing isn’t accidental.
And yeah, there will have to be prosecutions. This isn’t some sort of option, Yglesias, where you can pick and choose so cavalierly from some sort of glorious policy buffet.
Who are you kidding? You cite Schultz and Podesta while simultaneously denying the need for prosecutions. Refusing to prosecute is not an option available to you. It doesn’t matter if convictions might be ‘difficult’. It really doesn’t matter if it’ll make you uncomfortable, or whether there will be political costs.
Just the act of prosecution will notify officals and operatives down the line that they are not above the law.
Your ‘alternative’ would clearly set a precedent that anything goes, that it’s a wide-open field with no barriers whatsoever to abuse of power by the Executive. Having watched official D.C. look the other way, you’d set no standards whatsoever. Your alternative invites the futher evisceration of the clear-cut laws that define this nation and preclude preisely this sort of abuse.
The Przt & Vice Prznt tortured for political purposes. ~100 ‘detainees’ were murdered under this treatment regime. They tortured to extract false confessions of a nonexistent link between Saddam Hussein & al Quaeda — to cover for the lies used to justify an illegal, preemptive war. Preemptive wars were the basis for our cause of our principled antipathy to Hitler — his methods defined Germany as a mortal threat. Now, we’ve adopted that ‘option’ and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ — torture — as well.
And you think it criminal prosecutions are not called for? Or necessary? Or productive? That’s not just laughable, it’s profoundly irresponsible, and by defintion unamerican.
Literally.
May 18th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Forget for a moment the moral imperative to seek justice for crimes carried out by the prior administration against the United States of America.
Strategically, what is the best way to advance the progressive agenda? Is the thinking at CAP that investigations and possible trails during Obama’s tenure will be so distracting that progress on important matters -energy, education, healthcare- will be unduly impaired?
It is possible. But pushing the progressive agenda in this current political environment was going to be a dogfight no matter what. The best that progressives could hope to achieve was a series of mushy comprises with or without distractions.
To me, this is another once in a lifetime opportunity -the bailout is the other- to crush the forces aligned against the Left. If we truly believe in implementing progressive values, then this country must be forcibly dragged leftward, as far leftward as we can take it, and the only way to do that is to eliminate as much of the Right as is humanly possible.
We must ruthlessly exploit our opponents now, when they are at their weakest. The Right would certainly seek to destroy us if the situation was reversed.
May 18th, 2009 at 1:57 am
DTM, 97. No, the evidence that the waterboarding of the three yielded actionable intelligence that saved lives is in the memos which Cheney wants released and Obama won’t. It’s a simple matter, actually, and will come into evidence, eventually.
================================================
May 18th, 2009 at 2:11 am
DTM, 97. You should read Marc Thiessen’s response in the March 29, 2009 edition of National Review Online to the Washington Post article that claimed that waterboarding had not yielded actionable intelligence. I believe it has the information that will be confirmed by the memos that Cheney seeks.
=======================================
May 18th, 2009 at 3:52 am
kim,
We still have yet to reach the point where Thiessen’s argument is relevant. Torture was, is, and remains illegal. As DTM clearly spells out, the statutes on the book are more than adequate. Now if you want to push for changing the law and withdrawing from UN Convention Against Torture — you know, to be more like Iran, one of the world’s few non-signatories — more power to you. But that’s the first step.
And Thiessen, for now, is just blowing a lot of hot air. The person who actually interrogated Abu Zubaydah, Ali Soufan, claims the opposite, that all actionable intelligence was obtained PRIOR to torture. And the revelation of cells in Asia was nothing of the sort — the Guraba Cell was broken up in February of 2002, over a year BEFORE KSM was captured, much less tortured. As for Isamuddin, I doubt that KSM had much to add. The CIA had been searching for him for 20 months, and he moved frequently, so KSM likely had no idea of his whereabouts in the five months between his capture and the capture of Isamuddin. Clearly, Thiessen work resembles that of a speechwriter, not a journalist, meant to persuade and deceive, poorly I might add. So consider the “hole in the ground in Los Angeles” being prevented by torture as reliable as the “mushroom cloud” that Saddam could never have conjured. All fabricated out of emperor’s cloth.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:46 am
kim,
Well, the bottomline is that you are putting a lot of faith in the claims of a man who has been proven wrong over and over again, and the CIA’s own internal review reportedly found differently. But we shall see.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:32 am
mjt, 105 and DTM, 106.
This is all very interesting and informative. You have to wonder, though, why Obama won’t release the memos that Cheney wants. I see that Cheney will have a speech about this subject on Thursday.
Meanwhile, look at the Pew poll from just a month ago with results quite different than the nearly four month old poll that Matt headlines.
===============================================
May 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
There is not one atom of evidence that even one American life was saved by torture.
OTOH, the use of torture-obtained “evidence” to bolster the phony link between al Qaeda and Saddam *did* needlessly destroy over 4000 American lives as a result of the unnecessary US invasion and military occupation of Iraq.
Smarter trolls, please!
May 18th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Joel, 108. What does the 1998 indictment of OBL say about the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq?
====================================
May 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
You have to wonder, though, why Obama won’t release the memos that Cheney wants.
Not really. The Obama Administration is engaged in all sorts of real legal action involving this material, everything from FOIA requests to court cases to Congressional inquiries and so on. What you decide to release and when in such a situation is very complicated, because disclosure of one thing can have ripple effects when it comes to other things.
So, Cheney wading into the middle of all this and asking the Obama Administration to release some particular memos he wants to cherry pick isn’t really a request you would expect to be automatically granted–maybe eventually, but not just when Cheney snaps his fingers. Of course Cheney knows this as well as anyone, and he is relying on the blind faith of his followers to lead them to the conclusion that because the Obama Administration did not immediately comply with his request, he must finally be telling the truth about something.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am
DTM, 110. It’s sort of amusing the faith you have that those memos won’t back up Cheney’s contentions. And you’ve twisted yourself into a knot explaining Obama’s failure to release those memos. Don’t you think that if they didn’t back up Cheney, then Obama would have released them in a heartbeat? That’s a lot more simple reasoning than trying to explain Obama’s actions in the way you have. Obama has certainly declassified stuff when it is advantageous to him. Oh, yes, Obama is transparent, alright. Heh.
Also, on Feb. 7, 2002 Bush signed a memo declaring that the detainees were not covered by the Third Geneva Convention. Also, there is evidence from a 2005 NYTimes article that al-Libi made the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq by 2002, apparently well before any waterboarding was done. Now what we can determine about al-Libi’s credibilility is difficult to say, but it has certainly become more difficult now because of his recent, convenient to some no doubt, death.
============================================
May 18th, 2009 at 9:59 am
“What does the 1998 indictment of OBL say about the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq?”
Got me, kim. Since there were *no* links between al Qaeda and Saddam then, nor on 9/11, nor since, I can’t imagine what purpose this piece of misdirection serves.
No American lives were saved by torture, kim. Your speculations about Cheney’s and Obama’s motivations are not evidence, just more misdirection.
You got nothin’.
Smarter trolls, please!
May 18th, 2009 at 9:59 am
kim, 111. I meant to say that al-Libi making the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection was done by February, 2002, well before any waterboarding. The NYTimes article is by Douglas Jelk, in 2005, easily found by googling. I’ll get you the date if you can’t find it yourself.
So much for that meme. And what about the 1998 OBL indictment?
=========================================
May 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Joel, 112. Bald assertion won’t get you anywhere. Show me the indictment.
==============================================
May 18th, 2009 at 10:03 am
The indictment says that al-Qaeda agreed to work co-operatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. You could look it up. This was the Clinton Administration, mind you.
=================================================
May 18th, 2009 at 10:19 am
kim 107 — Once again, why should either of these points matter? Torture is illegal whether Obama chooses to make himself an accomplice or not. Politics shouldn’t play a role in this. Last time I checked, a poll is not law, and we knew less a month ago than we do today. And while they always show the clock in the movies, what constitutes a “ticking time bomb” in real life? Certainly not the situations discussed by Thiessen.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:28 am
It’s sort of amusing the faith you have that those memos won’t back up Cheney’s contentions.
I have no such “faith”. Again, I just know what has been reported about torture in general, what has been reported about the 2004 CIA Inspector General investigation, and so on. I also know that no reasonable person would assign any credibility to anything Cheney claims at this point.
Which is really the point. We have lots of evidence that torture is an ineffective and counterproductive interrogation technique. But Cheney claims he has proof otherwise. And while I am not ruling out the metaphysical possibility that Cheney is right, I think it is obvious it would be pretty foolish for anyone to rely on his word.
Don’t you think that if they didn’t back up Cheney, then Obama would have released them in a heartbeat?
No. This may be hard for Cheney and his followers to accept, but Cheney’s personal saga is really not high on Obama’s list of concerns right now.
Also, on Feb. 7, 2002 Bush signed a memo declaring that the detainees were not covered by the Third Geneva Convention.
So? In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held otherwise. And the Supreme Court gets the final say on interpreting U.S. laws, including our treaties.
Also, there is evidence from a 2005 NYTimes article that al-Libi made the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq by 2002, apparently well before any waterboarding was done.
Again, so? Keep in mind that waterboarding isn’t the only form of torture that was authorized, and as I understand the timeline this false information was still provided after al-Libi was transferred to the CIA for torture.
Now what we can determine about al-Libi’s credibilility is difficult to say, but it has certainly become more difficult now because of his recent, convenient to some no doubt, death.
Nonsense. Even at the time, other intelligence agencies thought that what al-Libi was giving to the CIA under torture was not credible. There was never any confirmation of his tales, and al-Libi himself finally recanted. So there is no real difficulty in assessing this situation: al-Libi figured out what the CIA wanted to hear and gave it to them, even though it was all made up.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am
William Schulz says:
As I noted in an earlier thread on the subject, one of the federal statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2340(2)) implementing CAT reduces the definition of torture to four specific practices:
In other words the definition of psychological torture is reduced from the language of the CAT (which is not per another reservation self-executing) to drugging people, threatening them with death, and threatening that others will be drugged or threatened with death; the reservation narrowly defining torture was insisted on in 1988 (when Reagan signed the Convention) by the State Department (per DOJ lawyers). It was done (in my understanding) to protect the CIA from being prosecuted for employing techniques they and surrogates had refined during the Cold War including sleep deprivation and stress positions.
It would seem that the only practice (known to have been) employed by American interrogators in recent years that could under the narrow statutory definition of torture be possibly illegal is waterboarding, and the language in (2) would seem to require proof of intent.
None of this makes Bush administration policy on interrogation right (in the moral sense), but as Schulz notes the point is to find a way to prevent these things from happening again. I would add that I think it’s important to find a way to prevent these things being done by US interrogators, and on behalf of the US government by agents of foreign governments; another reservation(which became the basis for federal law) to the CAT contains a plausible deniability loophole for US officials involved in rendering detainees to countries that practice torture.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:47 am
It would seem that the only practice (known to have been) employed by American interrogators in recent years that could under the narrow statutory definition of torture be possibly illegal is waterboarding, and the language in (2) would seem to require proof of intent.
Nope. For example, stress positions and wall-slamming both can cause, and certainly threaten to cause, severe physical pain. In general, this will be a fatal problem for the defendants in criminal trials: a lot of the techniques were specifically designed to frighten the detainees into thinking they could be caused severe pain or even killed–and sometimes in fact they were (on both counts). That triggers the threat clauses in a straightforward manner.
Also, none of this addresses other applicable statutes, such as the War Crimes Act. The OLC didn’t consider the War Crimes Act much because it opined Common Article 3 didn’t apply to the detainees, but the Supreme Court held otherwise.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:52 am
linus 118,
This is all assuming that the 100 or so homicides, as defined by army medical personnel, are not due to policy as well. While perhaps not official policy, it seems likely that they are related in the “gloves are coming off” sense. Could the president and vice president done any better job of self incrementation? And why criminal prosecution is the means to deterrence in civilian life, but is unacceptable in political life, is beyond me.
kim 115,
Well, the actual text of the indictment only says that Iraq and al-Qaeda agree to not attack each other and will work together on weapons development. It provides no proof, of course, and could have just as well have been a CYA move after Sudan (pharm bombing) and kicking out the inspectors in Iraq (Clinton evacuated them, not Saddam). Regardless, stop with the “Democrats blah blah blah, Republicans blah blah blah”. US law takes precedence over party affiliation. It’s a shame that Hamilton didn’t stick to his guns and outlaw parties from the beginning.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
mjt, 116. Decent points, but this has escaped the confines of criminal court and become political. Why are the Democrats displaying their fundamental pusillanimity and hypocrisy about national security?
DTM, 117. Cheney’s personal saga may get more interesting to Obama after Thursday, when I predict Cheney will hammer Obama about concealing the memos that show the effectiveness of waterboarding. And I reiterate my point for mjt above. This is becoming a political landmine and booby trap for Democrats. Their hypocrisy and pusillanimity, oh, I already said that. I’ll get to say it lots more as time goes by. The first question on everyone’s mind after a terrorist tragedy is going to be ‘How did the intelligence fail’, and you can lay the primacy for that question directly at Obama’s feet.
linus, 118. Yeah, intent is pertinent.
======================
May 18th, 2009 at 10:58 am
mjt, 120. Yes, sure, the indictment is not proof. But, in general, prosecutors do not allege things in indictments that they are not prepared to prove. That we have not seen the proof does not mean it does not exist.
And I re-iterate; this has become highly political, thanks to Pelosi and Obama, and political opinion will swing even farther in the direction of supporting ‘enhanced interrogation’ once the proof of its efficacy is in the public’s eye. And Obama can’t hide that forever.
===================================
May 18th, 2009 at 11:04 am
mjt, 120. I’m a little amused by your call for the end of partisanship. In fact, in 2002, our War on Terror was relatively non-partisan, witness Pelosi and many other Democrats. It is the Democrats who’ve made it partisan since then, and it is their hypocrisy and their lack of principles now that is so damning. So forget trying to make it non-partisan. It’s too late. Like I said, Obama blew it, particularly since he seems to be now following the trail Bush/Cheney blazed, with the help of Democrats.
=============================================
May 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am
121 kim,
Well, the intelligence didn’t fail because of a lack of torture, and it certainly didn’t fail on Obama’s watch (though he is failing now to adequately match actions with speech). Once again I would ask that you familiarize yourself with Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who knew a couple of the terrorists responsible for 9/11. The main issue that allowed for 9/11 was FBI and CIA competition, rather than cooperation, as they both had different parts of the puzzle. This was resolved, but only briefly, as Soufan related to the Senate Judicial Committee. Since the FBI actually cared about whether it was breaking the law, it could no longer participate in the torture sessions, and information was lost. Soufan was also responsible for getting the name of KSM and connecting him with 9/11, as he relates in great detail in the NY Times, unlike Thiessen’s drivel which a Google search and rudimentary timeline can disprove.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am
123 kim,
Well, if you insist on bringing up political party first and foremost, you’re part of the problem and not the solution. I don’t particularly care for either party, and in case you haven’t noticed, hypocrisy is the name of the game in Washington. The fact that Gingrich and McCain are held up as family values guys is proof enough of that. As for the Democrats being responsible, please. To blame either party is ridiculous. I mean, if we really want to attach blame we can go back to the 60s and Nixon’s Southern Strategy, though really you have to go back a lot further. In my mind, this criminal case is far more relevant to the corridors of government than anything Clinton was doing with a cigar. Are you claiming that wasn’t political?
And as for Pelosi and Obama, let’s see…Obama has resisted releasing documents, refused to prosecute (before re-reading the constitution and realizing it wasn’t his job), and basically gone back on any ideas of accountability that he sold us on during the campaign. To say he’s withholding documents now — look up the statute. He could break the law and release them, but I doubt he really willing to go out on that limb for Cheney. Pelosi – CYA, pure and simple. I say indict her first if it makes you happy.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Why bother with criminal prosecutions? Think of the economy. If we shut down our police departments, courts and prisons that would be a big mistake under current economic conditions. Not to mention the 2.3 million prison inmates who would be dumped on a weak job market.
No, I think the wise course is to continue to prosecute crimes and jail criminals.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am
“This is all assuming that the 100 or so homicides, as defined by army medical personnel, are not due to policy as well.”
I won’t comment on the number of possible detainee deaths during the Bush years since I’m not familiar with the figures but to the extent that policies led to any deaths it may be the best case for prosecuting or at least disbarring Bush administration officials. It is I believe the stated policy of the Obama administration that there won’t be any prosecutions of American interrogators so I think that question is moot.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Bald assertion won’t get you anywhere. Show me the indictment.”
Uh, no, kim. The burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion that American lives were saved by torture. You are the one who must come up with the evidence to back your assertion.
An indictment that asserts without evidence that an agreement was made is no evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam ever worked together on anything. It is every bit as empty and meaningless as Cheney’s assertions.
You got nothin’, kim. You are an empty vessel.
Smarter trolls, please!
May 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Cheney’s personal saga may get more interesting to Obama after Thursday, when I predict Cheney will hammer Obama about concealing the memos that show the effectiveness of waterboarding.
Then Cheney won’t be doing anything new, and he won’t be addressing the problems people actually care about.
One of the great ironies of all this is that the Bush Administration’s war crimes really isn’t a central issue for the American people. I personally wish they cared a bit more, but I can understand why they are more focused on things like the economy, their health care, and so on. But in any event, those are their priorities, and that is why Obama really isn’t going to be obsessing about Cheney as much as Cheney and his followers do no matter what Cheney does.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
It is I believe the stated policy of the Obama administration that there won’t be any prosecutions of American interrogators so I think that question is moot.
Not exactly. They have stated that if the interrogators relied in good faith on the OLC memos and stayed within the scope of those memos, they will not be prosecuted. That is actually just a statement of existing law: reasonable reliance on an official statement of the law by the prosecuting authority is a valid defense to a criminal prosecution. And it doesn’t cover interrogators who don’t fit within those conditions.