A Welcome Chill
(cc photo by furryscaly)
If you want a sense of how sick the torture debate in the United States has become, look no further than Robert Alt’s argument in the LA Times that we can’t investigate perpetrators of past interrogation abuses because it might have a “chilling effect.” But the chilling effect is a feature, not a bug, of investigations. When you set up an intelligence agency authorized to operate in secret, you’re creating a large potential abuse problem. Add a panicky national atmosphere and George W. Bush and next thing you know we’re torturing people.
What would be wanted to prevent this would be, you know, a chilling effect. A little bit of the old “I see what you’re saying boss, but that’s illegal!” This is what we have laws for. Meanwhile, read Chris Hayes on “The Secret Government”.
50 Responses to “A Welcome Chill”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 27th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
See, to me not investigating would have a chilling effect.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“Chilling effect” is often used in the context of discouraging journalistic investigation. And while normally I’d say that intelligence agencies finding things out from captives by torturing them is dissimilar to journalists finding things out from sources by asking them questions, the quality of political reporting and op-eds in contemporary American journalistic publications is such that reading them is torture.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
On the other hand , if we connected an extension cord to Robert Alt’s testicles and plugged it in, that might have a chilling effect on torture advocates.
Hmmmm. Tough call.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
On the other hand , if we connected an extension cord to Robert Alt’s testicles and plugged it in, that might have a chilling effect on torture advocates.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_to_fight_terror_with_terror
August 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Matt,
For those defenders of torture, here is what I say: “Dick Cheney knows where Osama bin Laden currently is and has resisted all conventional means of sharing that information.” My statement is as credible as some of the evidence used to torture others, so it’s quite amazing to see them suddenly shut up when “funny-looking non-Christian person” is changed to someone else.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Much of the world and especially Europe was a huge, smoking wasteland in 1945. There was so much work to be done once WWII ended it boggles the mind. The need to “look forward” and concentrate on the task at hand was never greater. Yet civilized peoples saw fit to conduct the Nuremberg tribunals and prosecute atrocities committed by various bad actors, including Germans. The course suggested by those wanting Holder to forget the last 8 years would have prevented the Nuremberg proceedings and left many criminals to roam free and unpunished. In hindsight do Republicans think German war criminals should have been forgiven their crimes? If not forgiven at least not investigated, charged and prosecuted? If not why suggest that course now?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The basic problem is that these guys just don’t accept that torture in general should be illegal. So, in their minds it is a line-drawing problem: how much torture should we be doing? And they are more concerned about undershooting the right amount of torture than overshooting the right amount of torture.
Given that perverse setup, it actually makes sense to argue that criminal sanctions for crossing the line would have a “chilling effect”, meaning that probably people wouldn’t torture as much as they were technically allowed to torture for fear of accidentally overshooting and becoming criminally liable. But conversely, their use of this logic is a dead giveaway that these are people who believe that some amount of torture is the right amount.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
In hindsight do Republicans think German war criminals should have been forgiven their crimes?
I dunno–would those Germans be willing to become Republicans in exchange for freedom from legal and moral bounds? Because that appears to be the crucial question for the modern GOP.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
But the chilling effect is a feature, not a bug, of investigations.
A chilling effect on interrogators doing their jobs is a feature?
Note that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the use of a combination of stress positions, sleep deprivation, food and drink deprivation, loud noises and hooding is NOT torture.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
A chilling effect on interrogators doing their jobs is a feature?
A chilling effect on people committing crimes is a feature. That’s kind of why we have law enforcement and prisons – to convince people not to commit crimes. We want this because the things that are crimes are things we think are harmful to society, like murder and robbery. And torture.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Oh, I forgot to add: It isn’t part of any U.S. government employee’s job to break the law. It can’t be. Neither the President nor any lesser official has the authority to order a subordinate to break the law.
If interrogators think “I’d better obey the law while conducting this interrogation”, then yes, that’s a feature.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
A chilling effect on torturers is better than nothing. IF we can’t get the big fish, then fry all the little ones so badly that ‘following orders’ no longer seems like the safer bet.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Note that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the use of a combination of stress positions, sleep deprivation, food and drink deprivation, loud noises and hooding is NOT torture.
What about clubbing someone to death with a flashlight. Is that okay, just part of the job?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Max424, where does the European Court of Human Rights stand on waterboarding, mock execution, threatened murder, and beating (sometimes to death)? If that court rules that such actions constitute torture would you be OK with prosecuting the people who order, abet, and commit such crimes?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Also long-term sensory deprivation (which has been proven to cause insanity), and routine force-feeding. How do the Europeans feel about those?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Coming from a deranged pro-torture enthusiast, I knew that Max424’s claims had to be wrong somehow. It turns out, he’s technically right, but forgot to mention the rest of the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
Not torture, merely “inhuman and degrading treatment”, and clearly illegal.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Max424 Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Note that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the use of a combination of stress positions, sleep deprivation, food and drink deprivation, loud noises and hooding is NOT torture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Courtesy Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
The term five techniques refers to certain interrogation practices adopted by the Northern Ireland and British governments during Operation Demetrius in the early 1970s. These methods were adopted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary with training and advice regarding their use coming from senior intelligence officials in the United Kingdom Government.
The five techniques were: wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; deprivation of sleep; deprivation of food and drink. In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) trial “Ireland v. the United Kingdom” ruled that the five techniques “did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture … [but] amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment”, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 8 February 1977, in proceedings before the ECHR, and in line with the findings of the Parker report and United Kingdom Government policy, the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom stated that:
“The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the ‘five techniques’ with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the ‘five techniques’ will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Max424 is correct in the technical sense regarding eventual court findings. Read the entire entry. Despite those findings everyone involved in investigating the procedures agreed they amounted to a reprehensible list of methods and Great Britain specifically banned them. The devil is always in the details Max, enlightening the crowd here involves a little more honesty on your part.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Hey, who stole my identity? Thanks. I consider it quite a compliment.
The real Max424 believes Bush and Cheney should have to stand naked and chained before a tribunal.
I think someone is mad at me because I said in a previous thread that Conservatives only game plan for national greatness is to wave the Confederate Flag around.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
And of course there’s waterboarding (prosecuted by the US as a war crime after WWII) and, oh, murder — I’m pretty sure torturing people to death qualifies as torture but I would need Max424’s legal expertise to be sure.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Interesting. So we get to pick and choose which International bodies get to be authoritive based upon whether or not they give Bush/Cheney something to hide behind – but if otherwise, like, say, the ICC – to be completely discredited and ignored. The Bushies are *really* hiding behind Europeans now??
This type of “logic” was so pervasive 2001-2009 and so dishonest that it really almost strains credulity to think that just a short time ago that type of thinking/excuse-making was considered “serious” discourse in Washington.
It all seems so anachronistic now.
Yes, elections DO matter.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Thanks for those clarifications re. Max’s claim.
Regardless, count me skeptical that our Maxie believes, as a general matter, that US courts should take account of foreign law.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I could have sworn that Max424 was a good guy, but I thought, “Well, I sometimes get confused about James Gary and James Robertson; maybe there’s a liberal Max and a conservative Max.” Glad my first instinct was correct.
And whoever impersonated Max424: die in a fire.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I have also repeatedly written that I consider waterboarding to be the creme de la creme of tortures.
If you are going to torture someone, don’t waste time. Go directly to the waterboarding method. All other tortures pale in comparison.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
By the way, you just know a GOP presidential candidate in 2012 will run on a pro-torture, 100-Guantanamo’s platform, and get a lot of votes in the primary (including, presumably, our Not-Max troll).
And if there is a terrorist attack in the meantime, all GOP candidates will compete to establish who would torture the most.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I have also repeatedly written that squeezing every drop out of a torture inquiry would be an excellent strategy for Democrats to pursue.
It could spell the death of the Republican Party as we know it. And the necessary death of the Republican Party is the last great hope for America.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
23, that’s not true. IF you do it with coca-cola instead of water, it increases the efficacy of the torture creatly by adding the acidic sensation of having your mucus membranes burned slightly.
However, there’s still the problem that these techniques were developed specifically to obtain false confessions from individuals. that really is a difficult hurdle to clear. Unless you think that the the world was full of witches, werewolves, vampires in the olden days and the inquisition finally got rid of the buggers!
August 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Not torture, merely “inhuman and degrading treatment”, and clearly illegal.
Simple assault is also illegal, but it’s not torture either.
The point is that the ECHR ruled that the interrogation techniques listed do not qualify as torture. Interrogators who use them may be committing a crime, but they’re not committing the crime of torture. The accusation of torture is a false accusation.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
What about a chilling effect on people using lawful means of interrogation? Is that a feature too?
August 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
the real outrage is the eagles signed michael vick. he tortured dogs.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The accusation of torture is a false accusation.
What “The”? Is there an accusation on the table here?
The techniques used by American interrogators went well beyond the ‘five techniques’ discussed above, so if you’re referring to the accusation that some of *those* techniques were torture… your point doesn’t answer it.
Besides, illegal is illegal. If an American used the ‘five techniques’ and gets tried and convicted for some crime other than torture, that’s still justice being done.
In other words, maybe I’m missing something but I’m hearing nothing more than pedantry from you, jmo.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@27: Assuming that’s correct, then trying them would lead to conviction on the lesser charge, or to acquittal. So no problem, right?
August 27th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
@28: Why would people who weren’t committing a crime fear that they would be convicted of a crime they weren’t committing? That’s like saying enforcing the laws against speeding will chill drivers who are obeying the speed limit, or that enforcing the laws against stabbing people with knives will chill all knife ownership and use.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The point is that the ECHR ruled that the interrogation techniques listed do not qualify as torture. Interrogators who use them may be committing a crime, but they’re not committing the crime of torture. The accusation of torture is a false accusation.
It’s torture under US law:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;….
August 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
What about a chilling effect on people using lawful means of interrogation? Is that a feature too?
You’re not reading, grumpy. Yes, government officials who are doing their jobs lawfully should, indeed, be ‘chilled’ at the prospect of the consequences for themselves if they decide the break the law.
Isn’t that how the law is supposed to work for all of us? There are laws against my stealing from my employer. That doesn’t mean they hamper my ability to do my job, which is what you seem to be implying anti-torture laws do.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The same people who compare Obama to Hitler allow the president to torture and break any law he wants.
Is there a word for “disingenuousness ** infinity”.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
What about a chilling effect on people using lawful means of interrogation?
If they are using lawful means of interrogation, what do they have to fear?
August 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The statute doesn’t say so.
“You’re a degrader!” doesn’t quite carry the same punch as “You’re a torturer!,” does it?
How do they know if they are using lawful means of interrogation when the law is so vague? That’s the problem. An interrogator may fail to obtain critical intelligence because he forgos a lawful means of interrogation from fear of prosecution.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Grumpy, there are no lawful means of interrogation that allow you to cause pain to other individuals. I’m sorry that you’re a batshit crazy moron without any kind of moral center, clearly God let you down on that one. However, the rest of us who don’t think testicle crushing is “legal” no matter how many memmos say otherwise are going to continue to have a real conversation.
Please either go reflect on the mental state that allows you to think these things are debateable and, if you can not reach the same conclusion that other sane individuals are capable of, please do the right thing and exit this mortal coil before you hurt someone.
Last time I checked, we are not actually bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. What they say simply doesn’t matter. US Law indicates it is torture, and US law is superior to treaties we did not sign or ratify.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The law is not vague, ryan. Stop being an apologist for rape and torture. You’re quite quickly making it clear that you’re just a sick fuck looking for any excue to torture people.
Lets stick your daughter in a room with these guys, and tell them she’s a terror suspect. Then you can watch what they do to her and tell me it’s not torture.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I don’t care if you actually oppose these things or not, you’re still a moral leper if you need a piece of paper written by corrupt old men to tell you what is and is not torture.
You’re just a useful fucking idiot for the Republican party at this point, trudging along screaming about the rule of law, ignoring the fact that the rule of law doesn’t seem to apply to anyone who makes over 200k a year or knows a congressman. Your ideals are, to borrow a phrase, “Quaint”. Antiquated. You show more outrage over a percieved abuse of language than over the actual abuse of human beings.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
How do they know if they are using lawful means of interrogation when the law is so vague?
You know, when you have to stop and ask yourself “hey, is what I’m doing to this person torture or isn’t it?” it’s probably a good sign that you’re doing something you shouldn’t.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Waterboarding is torture, and we’ve prosecuted it before.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Soullite,
Just to make sure you’re clear, there’s a “Ryan” and a “RyanS” in this thread, and it’s the latter you’re responding to, not me. I’m on your side in this.
Joe from Lowell made a similar same mix-up the other day and ended up accusing me of fomenting race hatred, when it was the other guy. Aggravating.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
An interrogator may fail to obtain critical intelligence because he forgos a lawful means of interrogation from fear of prosecution.
This objection precisely illustrates DTM’s observation at 1:27 PM above:
“The basic problem is that these guys just don’t accept that torture in general should be illegal. So, in their minds it is a line-drawing problem: how much torture should we be doing? And they are more concerned about undershooting the right amount of torture than overshooting the right amount of torture.”
August 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
On a technical legal issue, interrogation techniques of our WOT detainees that fell short of torture but constituted cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment were violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and thus were war crimes under the existing War Crimes Act. That is why every relevant person in the Bush Administration has been running scared ever since the Supreme Court decided that Common Article 3 applied to our WOT detainees: they knew that whatever defenses they had to torture prosecutions couldn’t possibly work in war crimes prosecutions, so they were screwed if this stuff ever got to court under the then existing law.
But anyway, I stand by my claim these people don’t just want to be able to use cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, although they certainly do want that. They also want to torture.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Oh, and over many, many years U.S. interrogators built up a wide array of effective interrogation techniques that fell well within these legal boundaries. So if these laws hadn’t been waived, our WOT interrogators could have stuck to using those techniques and had no reason to fear they were subject to criminal liability.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
It’s torture under US law
The statute doesn’t say so.
We need trolls who are actually capable of reading. What part of 113C.2340.2.C and D do you not understand?
August 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Another point re the Northern Ireland case. The UN Convention Against Torture wasn’t drafted until 1984, several years after the ECHR judgement.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
If the law is so vague, why were there never any confusion about it before the Bush administration actively set out to violate it?
August 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
In a bit of synchronicity, last night (August 27) on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) newscast, The National, they had a fairly in-depth piece on the CIA using Canadian research on hypothermia to refine their use of hours of cold-water immersion as torture.
Chilling, indeed.