Following the admission that the CIA hacked Senate computers and lied to Congress, President Obama today affirmed that it did indeed torture people. This admission (while belated) is an important recognition by the United States of what is obvious from a legal standpoint. However, that also means that CIA officials violated both federal and international law. The question is why Obama began his first term by promising CIA employees that they would not be tried for what he now describes as “tortur[ing] some folks.”
Despite the prior lying to Congress, Obama insisted that he had “full confidence in John Brennan.” As noted before, the Obama Administration is clearly unwilling again to discipline, let alone charged, any CIA personnel for hacking into congressional computers.
The President then turned to the Senate report on our torture program and affirmed his earlier 2009 statement that this was torture — plain and simple:
Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that’s what that report reflects.
Just a few points are warranted here.
First, torture is a war crime and the United States has insisted that it was at war. We have an obligation to investigate and prosecute any officials responsible for torture. Instead, both the Bush and Obama Administrations threatened countries like Spain and England for even investigating aspects of these crimes. Saying that we “tortured some folks” is not compliance with these law – either domestic or international
Second, it does not matter if we are “afraid” or angry under international law. These treaties clearly reject defenses like “just following orders” or justified torture.
Third, Obama has yet to explain his promise to the CIA employees after taking office. After his election, various high officials said that Obama told them privately that no Bush or CIA officials would be prosecuted. His staff denied the stories but he then soon thereafter told the CIA staff precisely that.
Finally, not only has the United States refused to hold our own officials to the same standards that we impose on other countries, but those responsible for our torture program are giving interviews and writing books in plain sight. In the meantime, the Administration has successfully blocked torture victims from seeking judicial review or relief in our courts.
That record makes the admission that “we tortured some folks” a bit less satisfying. No one familiar with the cases in this area should seriously doubt that we tortured people. What remains unclear is how we can justify not prosecuting those responsible. We may have “tortured some folks” but we never “prosecuted other folks.”
Source: ABC
Still measuring the size of your dictionaries?
“Folks”
From the OED (Paul’s Holy Grail):
Origin
Old English folc, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch volk and German Volk.
———————————————–
From the dictionary of the 99% (the one I used):
folks: O.E. folc “common people, men, tribe, multitude,” from P.Gmc. *folkom (cf. O.Fris. folk, M.Du. volc, Ger. Volk “people”),
Oh that “Holy Grail” … gotta luv it …
Dredd – the OED has a lot more if you are really citing it. Where is the rest? And where is a cite to the OED?
@Darren
Here is an interesting legal story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714096/FBI-used-flawed-hair-testing-method-convict-thousands-people-crimes-1980s-90s-including-death-row.html
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
WordMess censored a CBC interview of an OCSE observer of the MH017 site mentioning machine gun made holes in the aircraft.
Video is also here.
Eric,
I appreciate your candid response, that you do not know whether torture works.
I have no doubt that these barbarians will have no problem in torturing and killing their captives. I have no doubt either that if Hamas has F-16s, tanks and other weapons supplied and replenished by a super power it will use those weapons to kill innocent civilians in Israel. In other words , I expect them to behave that way, based on what I know about them, just as I do NOT expect us to behave similarly.
When they (terrorists) are our captives, we can either behave like them, or behave as members of a more advanced society, using more evidence based approaches to get the correct information from them. I think there is a lot of data to suggest that torture is counterproductive. Why would we want to regress to a lower level behavior when we do not even have the data to support that it is going to produce accurate information, and in the process violate our own laws and values? To me that is not worth it. If torture is so effective that it is worth regressing for, then I would like to see a clear evidence for that, before even engaging in a debate about it. Lets say that there is a conclusive scientific evidence for the efficacy of Torture (and not something similar to a placebo response), then we need to debate and change the laws, and not just change the name from torture to “enhanced interrogation”.
I believe (and yes I do not know), that in the remote future when our descendants will look back in time and see how we handled the issue of terrorism, how our presidents dealt with it, and what kind of characters were able to get our votes, they would wonder/ask what the heck was wrong with us. In order for homo sapiens to survive into the distant future, I believe, we will have to change our thinking dramatically, as if our thinking does not evolve in parallel to our tech advancement, we may not be able to survive for long. We get the kind of leaders that we deserve. I am hoping that in the next 100 years, after 25 presidential elections, voters will be at a level where we can deserve better presidents. In order to produce an advanced voter population we need to encourage critical thinking in our schools. Teachers need to induce a fire in students to really understand Science, and not rote learning to just pass tests.
Paul, thanks for the movie suggestion, I will check that out, I thought that was a fiction.
I believe that if the door was opened on prosecuting US intelligence and government officials for their counter-terrorism efforts, Clinton officials would be threatened, too. Our competition with al Qaeda didn’t begin on 9/11. It escalated throughout the 1990s.
Endeavor,
It’s a lot more than only your moral self-image and life at stake in the War on Terror. It’s a lot more than American lives at stake. If anything, non-Americans are more threatened than Americans by the terrorists, and if we choose to continue as an effective leader of the free world, then the War on Terror is our test.
Think of it like pegging currency. Whatever it takes to neutralize the enemy and prevent the reification of their vision for the world, counter-terrorism against terrorists like al Qaeda cannot ever make us the same as terrorists like al Qaeda. The bottom line is we know the kind of peace that’s their ultimate goal and we know the kind of peace that’s our ultimate goal. We know our default social condition. We know theirs, too.
We should navigate by our ethical principles and default to them. But the priority is to defeat the enemy and win the security, stability, and dominance that’s practically necessary to define the peace on our terms.
Do I know whether enhanced interrogation works? Why, when, and how it works? What was used and how and why it was used in the immediate urgent, exigent circumstances that followed the 9/11 attacks? I don’t know. I only know that whatever we did in our 1st reaction to 9/11, however imperfect and maculate it undoubtedly was at the beginning, was effective. I know it was done in good faith. I know context matters. I know respecting the enemy matters. I know winning this contest matters.
Endeavor: “There has to be a more sophisticated and civilized way to deal with Hamas ….”
This would seem to be the best available alternative:
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
But I don’t know the circumstances are there in Gaza for Israel to make it work.
Eric , you mentioned practical , let me ask you this , do you have indisputable data to support that torture works ? I understand that you think that it is ok to reduce ourselves to the terrorist’s level if we are in asymmetric war . Your opinion I think is not uncommon , but I would rather die than to become one of those . We all are different , I understand .
Endeavor – since you do not see yourself in the role of interrogator using enhanced techniques, that is why you were not hired. That means nothing less for you as a person, just that it is not your cup of tea.
slohrss29: “I said, well, they won’t be there long, they’ll bomb them, secure the oil, and that will be the end of it. My dad said, “no way, they’ll be {urinating} around there for 10 years or more, as long as they can keep spending the money on it.” I try to stick my head back in the sand, but it doesn’t stay.”
I guess your dad recalled that the US in its capacity as leader of the free world has traditionally followed war with long-term nation-building peace operations, whether with Germany and Japan or Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-start-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom-thoughts.html
[The] US historically has followed victory in war with a long-term presence and comprehensive investment in the post-war. As the World War 2 victors, we learned the importance of securing the peace after the war and not repeating the post-war mistakes made by the World War 1 victors.
We gain little from war itself because war is destruction. The prize of war is the power to build the peace on our terms. The long-term gains we historically associate with wars have actually been realized from our peace-building following those wars. To resolve the Saddam problem and then leave Iraq without first responsibly securing the peace would have been a contradiction of all our acquired wisdom as leader of the free world, an inhumane abandonment of the Iraqi people, and a short-sighted, enormously risky gamble that invited new problems.
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html
Q: The reasons for OIF seemed to change. Was OIF about WMD or democracy?
A: OIF was about both. The issues of Iraq’s WMD and regime change in Iraq were tied together. There was a bundle of reasons in the body of US laws and UNSC resolutions on Iraq. The short answer to ‘Why?’ is ‘All of the above’.
President Clinton explained the union of the issues with Operation Desert Fox:
Before Operation Desert Fox, regime change for Iraq had become a legal mandate with the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton explained the US policy when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act:
The regime change mandate was based on Clinton’s conclusion that achieving Iraq’s compliance would require regime change either with a voluntarily rehabilitated Saddam complying or, the much likelier way, Saddam removed from power. The source of the “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” was not Iraq’s WMD, but rather the intrinsic nature of Saddam’s regime within and outside Iraq. Iraq’s WMD was a symptom only, albeit a very dangerous symptom, of the cancer afflicting Iraq: Saddam’s rule, unreconstructed.
When Saddam failed to comply volitionally in his “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441), the objectives set by Clinton to resolve the Saddam problem were achieved by OIF: Iraq in compliance, Iraq at peace with its neighbors and the international community, and Iraq internally reformed with regime change.
For America the liberal hegemonic leader of the free world, the regime change that brought Iraq into compliance meant shepherding post-Saddam Iraq to a pluralistic liberal society, commonly called democracy.
Well impeachment , when you have people like Durbin and Reid in the senate , is not going to happen . I was hoping that there was some other legal and peaceful way to address the lawless behavior by a president who will have his party’s support no matter what . One problem That I see with the republicans is that they are very afraid of impeachment idea themselves because of the Clinton experience . However , I think that’s a poor judgment , to project that experience on to this president , as in Clinton’s case a large number of people didn’t feel very strongly , and had thought that to be an overkill , but I think that it is different with the current situation . Republicans maybe underestimating the number of people who are outraged by the behavior of this president. Bigger problem is the democratic control of the senate .
As far as his bragging about killing people including citizens without trial , I will add that he has even joked about killing with drones if someone tries to date his daughters . I think despite all the fuss about him being the president with the highest IQ, he is not that smart and definitely not very self aware . (True humility comes from self knowledge ) .
By the way , anyone has any comment on 80% civilian casualties in Gaza, and how the news, that the US has replenished the weapons for Israel to continue the massacre, will sound to someone who has just seen his child getting amputated with the Israeli bombardment and another daughter die in front of him ? Is this the best way to deal with terrorists who can hardly kill anyone from their “rockets” ? There has to be a more sophisticated and civilized way to deal with Hamas ….
Endeavor – just finished seeing the film “Ender’s Game” and he show the dilemma of dealing with an enemy that you think is going to attack again. The book is taught in military colleges.
Professor Turley,
Enhanced interrogation does present a moral dilemma. However, it is not the same moral dilemma across the spectrum. There are double, and triple, standards, and it’s important that we not conflate them as you do. Terrorists are a different kind of enemy and the War on Terror is a different kind of war than a state-v-state war. It has elements of law enforcement and normal war, but also elements that distinguish it from either.
In the normal spectrum of nation-state cooperation and competition involving uniformed soldiers and even, to a different degree and kind, special forces and spies acting as agents in the employ of sovereign nations, the conventions are clear. In my mind, that debate is settled. By compact (treaty), it is mutually committed that the rules agreed among sovereign nations regulate the international affairs among those nations and their agents. I agree that America should follow the rules when competing with the other nations in those international compacts.
At the same time, the bottom line is always the real bottom line of competition. If we are in a state-v-state contest, the stakes are high enough and/or our opponent breaks the rules, then we must do what we must do to compete. In a state-v-state contest, though, there should be a high bar for bending the rules and an even higher bar for breaking them.
The terrorists are not privileged to be protected by any such bar. The actors we are competing against in the War on Terror are not covered by the compacts as employed agents of other enfranchised nations. Aside from the compacts, terrorists are not tethered by the various levers that nations have with each other.
Should we gravitate to our ethical standards even against terrorists? Yes, but with the terrorists, we should err on the side of practical consideration, not compelled by an inapposite mandate of international rules.
Besides the blanket imputing of legal protections to stateless, out-law terrorists, I am troubled by the moral hazard of the marginalization of the practical stakes with the particular terrorists with whom we’re competing. You seem only tragically bothered at a remove by the terrorists’ actual harms and dangers. You seem only moved to an impassioned call to action by your opposition to the practical means of countering the terrorists.
This debate is important. But there are 2 sides to it. America has a pragmatic tradition and an idealistic tradition.
Help me understand the role that you are implying;”
Endeavor,
“Is it possible for a lawyer to be objectively neutral when advising public officials who were elected to their positions by a political majority or appointed to their positions by elected politicians? And if objective neutrality is possible, is it desirable, or even required?” on the topic; “THE ETHICS OF LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT” during the HOFSTRA’S 2009 LEGAL ETHICS CONFERENCE
So, is it possible? This would be a good place to start.
There is a legal remedy to a lawless president. It is impeachment. Impeachment should happen but will not because we also have a largely lawless congress.
The judicial system has pretty much sided with lawlessness by the executive, with some important exceptions. But regarding torture, the courts have disallowed redress of harm in almost every ruling.
This is why I think it will take a mass citizen movement to have any hope in correcting what is happening in the US. I presented Argentina as an example of people who faced down a deadly, completely lawless regime. I think the points other people made about how the US is different from Argentina are valid. So, it is up to us to think about those difference and confront them so that we may also act to benefit our society, returning to the rule of law.
Paul, Obama has actually bragged about killing American citizens, including killing a 16 year old boy. I don’t know how you missed it because he crows about it often and people stand and deliver their clap to his lawless cruelty. Every society has people who love the powerful. They love to be “close” to their brand, they love their “leader”. It is my hope that these people will snap the hel^ out of it and starting loving justice.
Jill – the reason I missed Obama on killing a 16 year old boy is that I do not listen to him.
Here is an article explaining how to tell a sociopath from a psychopath.
http://www.alternet.org/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath?akid=12077.77792.6JRGCt&rd=1&src=newsletter1013718&t=14
It looks like the torturers here are maybe more psychopathic if the article is right.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@ John Oliver ,
Help me understand the role that you are implying and then suggest, if you don’t mind , how you think it can be fixed ?
Paul C. Schulte,
To understand post-9/11 counter-terror policy, you have to look at the pre-9/11 counter-terror policy, particularly as developed by President Clinton in response to the rise of the al Qaeda and Saddam problems:
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/02/the-myth-of-george-w-bushs-foreign-policy-revolution-reagan-clinton-and-the-continuity-of-the-war-on-terror/
The PL 107-40 premise of “[The] President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States” wasn’t a novel formulation on Sept 11, 2001. It was the standing, activated policy from prior administrations.
Fix: The too-short response is
you’reyour position is incorrect, arguable, and incorrect.jill: “illegal war on Iraq”
The full response that I copy and pasted is trapped in moderation, but you can read it here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#wasOIFlegal
The too-short response is you’re position is incorrect, arguable, and incorrect.
Excerpts:
A1: There is no domestic legal controversy. Under American law, the whole 1990-2011 Iraq mission, including the 1991-2003 ceasefire enforcement and 2003-2011 post-war peace operations, was legal.
. . .
Under Presidents Bush (the father) and Clinton, Congress had made clear the President was authorized per Public Law 102-1 to use military action to enforce Iraq’s compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions, including the Gulf War ceasefire.
. . .
In Spring 2003, Saddam’s continued material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire was confirmed when Iraq failed its “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply with the weapons and non-weapons mandates of the UNSC resolutions.
. . .
A2: While there is no domestic legal controversy over OIF, there is an international legal controversy over the US-led military enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire between 1991 and 2003, including but not limited to Operation Desert Fox and Operation Iraqi Freedom – i.e., the episodic view that UN authorization was required for each US military action, versus the American progressive view that a priori and de facto authority for the US-led military enforcement of the UNSC resolutions carried over the legal authority of the original Gulf War authorization to enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire and subsequent UNSC resolutions.
. . .
It is undisputed that Iraq was in material breach of the weapons and non-weapons mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions in Spring 2003. The disagreement was whether the US President or the UN Security Council, which included Saddam’s ally in Russia, held the ultimate authority to order the enforcement of the credible military threat of regime change in response to Saddam’s failure to seize his “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply with the UNSC resolutions.
. . .
A3: There is neither a domestic nor international legal controversy over the 2003-2011 US-led occupation mandated to “take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq”. As in the occupation following the Serbian regime change, the peace operations following regime change in Iraq were conducted with UN authorization. For example, see UNSCR 1511 (2003): … Also see UNSCRs 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005), 1723 (2006), 1790 (2007), and the 17NOV08 agreement between the US and Iraq.
slohrss29: “Shortly before my father died, we discussed the Iraq invasion. I was horrified that it actually happened, because we knew it was phony.”
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.htm
Q: Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?
A: No.
One, the Iraq enforcement was compliance-based. President Bush’s presentation of intelligence did not and could not trigger OIF. By procedure, only Iraq’s noncompliance could trigger enforcement, and only Iraq’s compliance could switch off the enforcement.
The prevalent myth that OIF was based on a lie relies on a false premise that shifted the burden from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraq possessed WMD. In fact, the US as the chief enforcer of the UNSC resolutions held no burden of proof in the Iraq enforcement. Iraq as the probationary party held the entire burden to prove Iraq was compliant and disarmed. The question of “Where is Iraq’s WMD?” was never for the US President to answer; it was always one of the questions Saddam was required to answer to the chief enforcer’s satisfaction in order to pass the compliance test.
OIF is often isolated out of context and misrepresented as a new policy by Bush. In fact, OIF was the coda of the US-led enforcement with Iraq that began in 1990. Iraq’s guilt was established as fact from the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire and presumed in the enforcement of the UNSC resolutions. The basic presumption of the disarmament process was anywhere Iraq provided deficient account of its weapons imputed possession. Thus, had Bush presented no intelligence on Iraq’s weapons, the compliance-based enforcement procedure would have been the same because Saddam was guilty until he proved Iraq was compliant and disarmed.
Two, it is undisputed that Iraq was noncompliant at the decision point for OIF. Inspectors’ reports throughout the UNSCR 1441 inspection period made clear Iraq had failed to sufficiently account for documented NBC stocks and cooperate to the mandated standard along with other violations. On March 7, 2003, UNMOVIC reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq presented “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”.
The public controversy is over Bush’s presentation of intelligence on latter Iraqi NBC stocks and programs. In the context of the Saddam problem, Clinton and Bush officials were obligated to judge the intelligence in an unfavorable light for Iraq, and 9/11 compelled US officials to increase their wariness due to Saddam’s belligerence and guilt on terrorism. Again, the “clear and present danger” of Saddam was imputed from Iraq’s noncompliance, not Iraq’s demonstrated possession of WMD stocks, due in part to the proven success of Saddam’s “denial and deception operations”, which included hidden stocks.
The intelligence that Bush presented was the intelligence that was available. Congressmen, Democrats and Republicans, who independently reviewed the intelligence largely shared Bush’s determination. Bush’s mistake was presenting the intelligence to the public inapposite of its actual, circumscribed role in the operative enforcement procedure. The imprecision of intelligence due to Saddam’s deception was a known issue from the beginning and accounted for with Iraq’s presumption of guilt, burden of proof, and standard of compliance. For ODF, President Clinton had cited only to Iraq’s noncompliance in terms of insufficient cooperation and deficient account of weapons when he declared “Iraq has abused its final chance” and imputed the “clear and present danger” of Saddam. Clinton’s citation of noncompliance as the reason for bombing Iraq matched the operative enforcement procedure. When Clinton endorsed Bush on Iraq, Clinton stayed consistent with his justification for ODF by citing to the threat, heightened by the 9/11 attacks, of Saddam’s “unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons”.
Bush cited properly to Iraq’s noncompliance as Clinton had done for ODF, but Bush also cited to the intelligence, despite that the intelligence could not trigger enforcement. Propagandists pounced on Bush’s error of presentation to shift the burden of proof from Iraq to the US, but the mistake does not change that Saddam was noncompliant at the decision point for OIF and Bush properly applied the operative enforcement procedure.
Three, albeit irrelevant to the enforcement procedure at the decision point for OIF, the post-war findings in the Duelfer Report corroborate Iraq was in violation of its weapons obligations. Although Bush improperly characterized the pre-war intelligence as “evidence”, the normal and proper role of intelligence is indicators, and the pre-war intelligence correctly indicated Saddam was in breach of Iraq’s weapons obligations.
Four, it is undisputed that Saddam was in violation on non-weapons issues, such as illicit trade outside the Oil for Food program (which funded Saddam’s weapons procurement) and humanitarian and terrorism standards. They were also triggers for the military enforcement. Saddam’s non-weapons obligations are often overlooked, yet they were as serious as Iraq’s weapons obligations. For example, the no-fly zones were the most visible, dangerous, invasive, and provocative component of the ‘containment’, yet the no-fly zones were not part of weapons-related enforcement. Rather, they helped enforce UNSC Resolution 688, which demanded an immediate end to the repression of the Iraqi civilian population.
The truth is Saddam was rearming and noncompliant on the weapons and non-weapons mandates of the UNSC resolutions.