Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
We have seen and heard the claims from Donald Rumsfeld and others that the leaked Senate torture report is off base because the enhanced interrogation techniques were not only legal according to the Office of Legal Counsel, but they also produced results. Putting aside the idea that just because an allegedly illegal act is claimed to have been successful in producing actionable intelligence, does not make it any more legal or illegal, is there a reason why we should listen to the participants who authorized the waterboarding and other torture procedures when they claim that all is well?
Now it seems that Donald Rumsfeld has company. “In an uncompromising and wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, his first public remarks since he was linked to the program in 2007, James Mitchell was dismissive of a Senate intelligence committee report on CIA torture in which he features, and which is currently at the heart of an intense row between legislators and the agency.
The committee’s report found that the interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell, a retired air force psychologist, were far more brutal than disclosed at the time, and did not yield useful intelligence. These included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation for days at a time, confinement in a box and being slammed into walls.
But Mitchell, who was reported to have personally waterboarded accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains unrepentant. “The people on the ground did the best they could with the way they understood the law at the time,” he said. “You can’t ask someone to put their life on the line and think and make a decision without the benefit of hindsight and then eviscerate them in the press 10 years later.” ‘ Reader Supported News
Mr. Mitchell makes some claims that confuse and disturb me. He seems to link being a torturer to a field agent or a soldier or Marine who puts his/her life on the line. While many CIA and other defense agency agents do indeed put themselves at risk, I fail to see how waterboarding someone in a secure prison or base is putting your life on the line.
Mr. Mitchell also claims that anyone or any governmental oversight agency that is reviewing the actions of these heroes of torture is merely using hindsight years after the events occurred in order to go after these agents credibility. Of course, Mr. Mitchell chooses to ignore or has conveniently forgotten that he and his superiors kept these activities secret from Americans for years. Can someone please remind Mitchell that waterboarding has been illegal in the United States for decades?
Has Mitchell decided to speak out because he is worried about possible legal ramifications of his allegedly heroic torture activities that may be more fully disclosed in the Senate Report if it is declassified? If Mr. Mitchell personally waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, maybe he should be worried. Does it surprise anyone that Rumsfeld, Mitchell and Jose Rodriguez are all going on the record in the last year or two in attempt to whitewash their involvement in allowing, authorizing and undertaking illegal torture procedures?
If you don’t remember who Jose Rodriguez is, he is the CIA supervisor who authorized the destruction of the video tapes of the torture techniques in use and could have proven who said what and what was actually done. So why would Rodriguez destroy the video tapes if he did nothing wrong and his allegedly illegal efforts produced results? I think Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Mitchell protest too much.
What do you think should be done with the Senate Report? Should it be fully declassified? If the report does prove that agents of the government, no matter how high up, were involved in illegal activities, should they be prosecuted if the law still allows it? If the CIA and other defense intelligence agencies are allowed to torture an accused prisoner, is any dissenter safe? What do you think?
BFM,
Apparently their understanding of ‘the buck stops here’, was that the buck stops and doesn’t reach that far.
Lois Lerner…Eric Holder…Barack Obama.
Apparently their understanding of ‘the buck stops here,’ was that the buck stops and doesn’t reach that far.
I love it.
Conspiracies one and all:
Nixon burglarizes a file cabinet. Result – Removal.
Obama sells anti-Muslim video in Benghazi. Result – Silence.
Obama conducts “dirty tricks” campaign through the IRS. Result – Silence.
Lois Lerner takes the 5th. Result: Silence.
Apparently their understanding of ‘the buck stops here’, was that the buck stops and doesn’t reach that far.
On this subject, let’s say, theoretically, a nuclear bomb is placed in a large city and the only way to prevent its detonation is torture, in which a high degree of professional confidence is expressed. To torture or not to torture. That is the question. What say you?
Interestingly, Churchill decided not to tell citizens of incoming buzz bombs to keep the secret of the fact that the Enigma code had been broken. Churchill allowed the torture of bomb fragments ripping through the bodies of citizens to preserve a high value national secret. And to be sure, anatomical disarticulation and pain are the same if done by human hands or artificial explosive non-local devices.
Is this discussion an academic exercise or real world decision?
What if it were your daughter?
“let’s say, theoretically, a nuclear bomb is placed in a large city and the only way to prevent its detonation is torture, in which a high degree of professional confidence is expressed. To torture or not to torture. That is the question.”
I think this is a pretty good example of my belief that it is possible to sketch a hypothetical for most any situation that justifies most any conceivable solution.
In this particular hypothetical, the expected answer seems to be contained in ‘the only way to prevent its detonation is torture’, or maybe ‘a high degree of professional confidence is expressed [ in torture] ‘.
I think there are real problems for the idea that torture is the only possible solution. First of all there seem to be real questions regarding the efficacy of torture. If the useful results of torture were so clear then why would we have repeated, consistent reports that the CIA has presented misleading of false reports of its efficacy?
But beyond the efficacy question regarding torture, I would argue this hypothetical does not seem very relevant to the situations we meet in real life. The guy we are going to torture might be a terrorist or he might be a cab driver, or a lawyer. He might know where the bomb is or he might have trouble remembering where he left his brief case with important business papers. Even if we know he is a terrorist, the package he delivered might have been a bomb or it might have been laundry for the safe house – he may not know what was in the package.
My guess is that it is rare that real life presents us with a situation where we know we have the terrorist, he knows where the bomb is, we know he knows where the bomb is, and the only possible solution is torture. Maybe it happens that way – but I will wager not very often.
Of course, you may be asking me hypothetically what would I do. Well, when I am not in a mellow Walter Mitty mood, hypothetically I am a hot head, kick in the door, make my day kind of guy. So, … duh … of course I would torture him – hypothetically. After all, torture is the only possible solution – hypothetically.
The point I am getting is that it is always possible to give a hypothetical that justifies a particular action, but that does not mean the action is a reasonable model for responsible behavior.
Maybe I am stubborn. But to convince me that torture is necessary, you are going to have to do more than describe a hypothetical that contains the assumption that torture the only possible solution.
BFM, right on.
Thanks Elaine. He may have been on the firing line in the past, but torturing a helpless prisoner is no service to be proud of.
rafflaw,
Thanks for this post. That’s an interesting article in The Guardian about Mitchell. Poor fellow! He’s “just a guy who got asked to do something for his country by people at the highest level of government”–and he did the best that he could.
And there’s still more to come.
Thanks for the posting, rafflaw.
“Enhanced interrogation techniques are criminal and we need to make that clear now.” -bigfatmike
Yep.
Justice Holmes: “He wasn’t on the battle field likely to be shot if he said no. He is a war criminal.”
Very true, Justice Holmes. His was an even WORSE crime. He wrote the rule book, as it were. I believe in tort law, at least, there is the concept of ‘proportionality’. Since he designed the programs (and I’m certain that he didn’t come up with the torture idea on his own; someone ordered him to do it) he should bear a proportionately higher percentage of the blame. That should travel all the way up the political food chain to Bush, where the buck supposedly stopped.
“where the buck supposedly stopped.”
Apparently their understanding of ‘the buck stops here’, was that the buck stops and doesn’t reach that far.
If citizens do not demand accountability for these criminal acts, particularly for the architects of the policy, we can rest assured the policies will continue and the acts will be repeated.
This is pure conjecture on my part, but my experience is that policies, believed to be successful, tend to be applied in other areas. If we do not make clear these policies are criminal, then there is the possibility that we will see the application of ‘enhanced’ techniques in other areas. Can anyone state with certainty that we will never see the application of techniques like stress position in civilian law enforcement?
Enhanced interrogation techniques are criminal and we need to make that clear now.
The CIA and other agencies have a long history of mind control experimentation…MKULTRA, Bluebird, Artichoke, etc. and the creation of the Manchurian candidate….2 hollywood movies about this…and Dr. colin ross’ book BLUESBIRD….artificially induced heart attack and stroke…is there a group of borderline crazies being used in this area…
… http://www.amazon.com/Bluebird-Deliberate-Creation-Personality-Psychiatrists/dp/0970452519 …
Darrel C Carlson, Charles Stanley already responded to you fairly well, but your comment shows you know nothing about this fight. See, you want to be the tool for OBL and AQ? You are exactly the type of American I’d want if I were your enemy. I would provoke your ignorance of others until I got the War on Muslims I was aiming for. That was OBL’s message, that Americans are savage capitalists that will destroy the world and every good Muslim. That message is easy to pass around America by getting it into your mouth via FoxNews, National Review, Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Pete King R-NY, etc. The more I can get you to amplify this message, the better for me (says the enemy).
The wiser man would realize….
You are holding people who are either not-guilty, not able to be tried by the US, or of no threat. The United States refuses to charge Abu Zubaydah. They refuse to do so because it would be easier for him to just languish in prison. Do I care what happens to Abu Zubaydah? not an inch. I care about what happens to justice instead. And his case represents very well what is wrong with our courage and confidence in justice. We have none.
We have accused him over and over, we have tortured him clearly, and yet…he has no pending charges. Go explain….
Better yet, in your infinite wisdom, please tell me about his and all the other CSRTs you’ve read. I have read everyone of the published CSRTs and other openINT documentation on the standing prisoners. Many have circumstantial accusations at best, “you were here crossing into Pakistan in Dec 2001 and are from Yemen.” to which many respond, “I was there to teach” or “i was on missionary work”
That’s it. No case in the United States would last this long. But you want special exception due to your hatred, your ignorance, your prejudice and your indifference. This is what America has become so don’t look down your nose very far to find a lowlife.
Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, Deuce Martinez, Jose Rodriguez, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard B Cheney should all be sitting on trial for these acts alone. If you have a problem with that, then don’t discuss law again because you don’t believe in it.
Should you wish to have further edification on the matter, I will gladly educate you on the matter.
Please arrest Mr. Mitchell. Please seat grand juries to probe matters of war crimes, no matter where they lead, including the present aiding and abetting administration.
The World War Two generation never supported torture as an official policy.
During the Cold War we denounced our enemies that perpetrated torture, censorship and domestic spying as the “evil doers” or god-less.
The real danger is the next generation have no moral compass in regards to torture and crimes against humanity. The clergy, parents, teachers and adults today have cowardly turned a blind eye to these evils.
The next generation won’t even question these evil practices – that is what is really dangerous. They will torture or assassinate anyone (including their fellow Americans) without any hestitation or moral question.
This generation has to have some backbone and reverse these immoral and unAmerican practices. Our kids think it’s perfectly fine and won’t know how to fix it.
Remember what Rumsfeld said? “The Fog of War”.
Torture? Show time.
I suppose someone that would know if it was REALLY torture or not would be Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, unfortunately she was one of the first women to die…..by suicide….once she saw the “enhanced interrogation” being used.
LISTEN, these war criminals killed a lot more innocent people than at first look, and they deserve to be put on trial for it.
For those who have not seen it, I refer you to my article posted here last December 15. We Have Ways of Making You Talk
They must deny wrong-doing. They fear being sent to prison. Had Natzi Germany prevailed, there would have been no Nuremberg Trials. Once we have withdrawn from Afghanistan, perhaps we can do some trying ourselves. Clearly dishonesty prevailed.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
Geneva convention is the law of the land:
(Epigovernment: The New Model – 7, emphasis added).
James Mitchell violated his oath of office, something that is becoming all too prevalent.
Dante has a place for people like Mitchel.
Nuremberg was human justice. But Mitchel didn’t just follow orders he designed the program. He wasn’t on the battle field likely to be shot if he said no. He is a war criminal.
New meaning for the term ‘deadender’.
I can follow the logic of 6 of Gandhi’s 7 sins, repeated by Buckeroo, but what is worship without sacrifice? Worship is a low scale activity in my book, light years below Admiration; certainly not worth Sacrifice, which has its place in other endeavors.