Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
This past week’s news reports of the Senate report on the CIA Torture program were both distressing and enlightening. I was dismayed to not only read what the full extent of the CIA’s Torture program was, but also when I read pundits and former CIA officials claim that rectal rehydration was merely a medical procedure! I was further discouraged when commenters on this blog made claims that waterboarding and other torture tactics were either necessary or what the devils deserved.
Very few pundits or commenters seem to care if the so-called Enhanced Interrogation techniques were legal or ethical when the CIA resorted to them shortly after 9/11. This “debate” over the actions taken in our name by the CIA has gone from a report based on the CIA’s own words to denials that the techniques were torture, to claims that great intelligence value was gained using the torture and claims that it was a biased report written by Democrats.
When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, most of the world was supporting the United States in its hours of grief and anger. What happened after the attacks quickly turned the tide of world opinion against us and created new enemies. When the CIA delved into its historical “playbook” to devise black sites and brutal interrogation techniques, the result, in my opinion, was a loss of our ethical and legal bearings that are still out of whack today.
When our greatest generation fought enemies stronger and just as brutal as what we face today, our forces were held to a higher standard than the enemy we were fighting. The idea that America does not torture or mistreat its prisoners or enemies is not a new one. It dates back at least to when General George Washington decided that British regulars and paid mercenaries fighting for the British were not to be mistreated in our detention facilities.
He made that decision knowing what too many of our soldiers had experienced under the hands of the British forces. We were supposed to be better than our enemies.
When the CIA delved into the black sites and torture techniques, another US agency, the FBI balked and questioned the tactics being practiced by the CIA. The FBI was gaining valuable information from al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, after his capture in March of 2002, but that all changed when he was put into isolation for 47 days.
“The Senate report describes the F.B.I. questioning — both in the hospital and later at the black site — as successful. Intelligence reports indicate he provided valuable information, but denied knowing anything about plots against America. But agency officials believed he was holding out. In response, Mr. Mitchell offered a menu of interrogation options.
While C.I.A. and Justice Department lawyers debated the legality of the tactics, the report reveals, Mr. Zubaydah was left alone in a cell in Thailand for 47 days. The Senate report asserts that isolation, not resistance, was the reason he stopped talking in June. Mr. Soufan said he was livid when he read that. “What kind of ticking-bomb scenario is this if you can leave him in isolation for 47 days?” he said.
For three weeks in August 2002, Mr. Zubaydah was questioned using the harshest measures available, including waterboarding. But the Senate report says he never revealed information about a plot against the United States. The C.I.A. concluded he had no such information.” New York Times
The CIA has used harsh interrogation and torture during past wars and conflicts and eventually the agency was brought under control. Waterboarding is torture, no matter what name it is given. Isolation, rectal rehydration, sleep deprivation, to name a few, are torture. We have prosecuted past enemies for waterboarding and even some of our soldiers who crossed the legal and moral line.
Why is it now only a crime if our enemies do it to us? Will we regain the soul of America again and finally get past partisan grievances to retake the moral standing of our nation?
We talk often on this blog about the rule of law. Whether it is a President who is grabbing more power for the Executive Branch or citizens of color who seemingly are undervalued by our Justice system. An argument can be made that ever since money starting taking control of our government, we have lost our rule of law because the wealthy and powerful seem to be immune to prosecution. Does the CIA stand above the rule of law?
Will the CIA be brought under control? Will government officials who authorized the torture and those that carried it out and those that refused to prosecute it be brought to justice? I submit that if we do not get control over the CIA our collective souls will continue to suffer in our eyes and in the eyes of the world. As Ali H. Soufan, the former FBI interrogator mentioned earlier says, our actions have consequences.
“‘We played into the enemy’s hand,” said Ali H. Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who clashed with the C.I.A. over its interrogation tactics. “Now we have American hostages in orange jumpsuits because we put people in orange jumpsuits.”’ New York Times It is an overused phrase, but it fits here:
“The whole world is watching.”
Only we can resurrect the soul of America. We are better than torture. At least we used to be.
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Paul Schulte, Nick Spinelli, et al., you seem to think that we need hardened men and women to do the dirty work for the bleeding hearts of the United States. You’re wrong. You live in your last war movie watched.
The substantive argument goes something like this: A civilized society cannot tolerate torture because it breeds people like you.
stevegroen – I can separate fact from fiction. But I live in the real world, not the world of special snowflakes.
Darren,
I know war is he’ll. That’s not news to me. I was against going to war with Iraq. Why invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Starting a preemptive war was reprehensible–just like torure. Trying to justify torture is also reprehensible.
I never mentioned anything about liberals/Democrats being free of blame. Many of them gave Bush the power to start a war with Iraq. I had hoped that we learned a lesson from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, the warmongers among us got what they wanted.
2016 is coming, and with.it, a dawn of the New Age. For the next 2 years the WASP society has control; nut will find it builds mothing but rage.
We,ve only ourselves to blame; because our cries out.. in relevance compare is lame.
I’m now convinced this realm is purging itself of that most dire, and that Paul is NBC/ Stone, refined for,to,by the high hires.
Torture is as torture does, Dracula was the blood thirstiest cause; he impaled.. instead of butt fed ..as he was the laws.
Building 7 was but a small part of 9/11; and you all best be glad that Michael Jackson ain.t here..but in heaven.
It’s a sad state of affairs, when educated minds have nothing better to do… then to point at each other.. instead of the puppet masters..
And accom nothing mire than boo hoo n poo..
On another matter let’s look at things from the perspective of a third party. We condemn, justifiably, the waterboarding of these prisoners as being abhorrent, but at the same time we think nothing of the person on the front lines shooting off the arm of a person, or the incineration of a crew of a tank with a hellfire missile as being an ordinary part of war. The people at the end, who suffer the pains of the injury and their impending deaths, don’t lie there and say “Well, the laws of war say my agony is acceptable.” Neither do those who are in GTMO. They only want the pain gone, and to be safe.
And, another situation comes into being. We fear that an enemy is upon us and what do we want? We want him to be blown away, either out of fear, revenge or whatever. The opposition wants the same outcome, for they have the same beliefs. Both sides engage in the schadenfreude for the other.
With elective wars, which in my view the 2003 Iraq war was about, it is quite easy to dehumanize the enemy and whip up the masses to engage the enemy in a mass killing. So easy it is for the politicians. Guess what, unless you were Saddam Hussein who met his end via a rope around his neck, Most of the politicians had the opportunity to speak a very eloquent speech, leading the people into harm’s way (on both sides). Then, repair to their high life with all the ease and pampering their friends in high places will award them. While patriotic people get sent to risk their lives.
As for other types of war recently, we took Manuel Noriega out of commission on a law enforcement raid. I knew two men who participated in it. They blew up an entire five story building because they suspected a sniper in it. Killed many people, and fought like it was a war. All to bring someone to the US on a drug trafficking charge. And, we go crazy over the events, as horrible as they might be, in Ferguson. We went into Panama and blew some places up to get one guy. Don’t tell me this is a police action. But, we rejoiced in bringing the president of panama to our courts because it was justice.
Still, we will look at what the Islamic State is doing to the innocents over in Syria, and Iraq on their murderous rampage. The barbarism is gruesome and we can take pause to welcome the various factions help them as quickly as possible be martyrs for their cause, AKA “dead”. And we will be glad they got what they had coming, which they deserved. So I am glad that they are aired out and can no longer rape and pillage civilians and any one else that wants to just live an ordinary life. We sympathize with the Yazadi’s and the Kurds and want this ISIS menace to be removed. So therefore we are just as hypocritical as the rest for the same reasons I mentioned before. And just as much so as anybody else with alignments to a particular side of a battlefield in some foreign or domestic land.
So therein lies the duality and tragedy of war. It is awful and nobody is without guilt, sin or virtue.
Rather than debating what is legal, mincing words, or constructing whatever euphemisms we can to justify the unjustifiable to give us and the other side more a convenient and a righteous stance in the prosecution of war, the truly best answer is this:
Avoid war at all costs and respect the lives of others. That should be the main goal of any diplomacy and that of humanity. If we as a species put war in the past, it would no longer be necessary to have these moral debates to justify our participation in such tragedies.
But the reality is, we are not going have the relief in seeing a farewell to arms. There are too many people wishing to impose evil on the world and centuries are going to pass before the end is likely. So our generation is going to have to take up arms to prevent an even worse scenario. I don’t like this, as does nobody else who truly understands what is involved. But it is the way it is now. We have to find a way out of this mess as a species not just “Us” and “them.”
“Verschärfte Vernehmung”
That’s German for “enhanced” or “sharpened” interrogation, from Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller’s June, 1942 memo prescribing and describing limitations on the practice. Müller’s memo is described in the following 2007 magazine article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/
‘The phrase “Verschärfte Vernehmung” is German for “enhanced interrogation”. Other translations include “intensified interrogation” or “sharpened interrogation”. It’s a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court.’
‘The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the president [Bush]. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff.’
Now all y’all fans of “rectal feeding” know your place in history.
Don’t go away mad! I’ll link to Müller’s Wikipedia entry. It includes a photograph of Müller in his blackest Nazi uniform. Print it out and hang beside your photograph of George W. Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Müller_(Gestapo)
(same link)preview.tinyurl.com/cvzmbdc
Jim N – I would posit that rectal feeding does not and was not meant to qualify as torture.
There are numerous news reports that refer to the torture report that there was no medical necessity to use rectal re hydration. Here is one from Bloomberg:
“Rectal feeding was performed on at least five detainees, none with documented conditions that made it medically necessary, according to a report released by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Others were also threatened with rectal rehydration, according to cables and records…
While rectal hydration may be used in emergency situations, it’s not the first-, second- or even third-best option, said Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture. It’s clear in the context of the report that there were ulterior motives in the decision to use the technique, he said…This was done not solely for therapeutic reasons but as another form of abuse or humiliation,” Keller said. “Given the circumstances, this is sodomy with the intention of humiliation under the guise of medical treatment.” ”
So who you gonna believe those lyin’ democrats and their phony torture report or Dick Cheney?
bfm – on the rehydration thing you gonna believe some twit in is a safe hospital or the guy dealing with a dangerous prisoner?
“you gonna believe some twit in is a safe hospital or the guy dealing with a dangerous prisoner?”
Are we talking about a medical evaluation and medical decision here?
Is there any chance that dealing with a dangerous prisoner and being a chain of command leading to Dick Cheney might color ones judgment?
Exactly how is it that being a dangerous prisoner influences ones medical condition and determines the required medical procedures?
Isn’t medical condition independent of whether one is or is not a dangerous prisoner?
Aren’t medical decisions made on the basis of medical condition and not one’s legal status?
bfm – medical decisions are based on the condition of the patient and the conditions at hand. Prisoners who are voluntarily starving are generally uncooperative and require extra attention. Although an IV would be ideal, they are easy to dislodge. Rectal rehydration is a better procedure under the circumstances.
All the senators and house leaders who were aware of this tactics and didn’t do anything should be tried , along with the current and past presidents and the Vice Presidents ! There is no other way to decontaminate the “soul ” from their primitive natures !
http://tribune.com.pk/story/807014/on-torture-tactics-death-threat-a-routine-cia-technique-says-zaeef/
Elaine wrote:
Darren,
The psychologists who devised the “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the people who tortured detainees were not soldiers fighting on a battlefield.
~+~
Both report to a commander in chief ultimately. Whether it be a suit or BDU’s, a pen or a sword, they are agents of a government prosecuting an action. The pawns follow what the kings decree. And the bishops forgive those who bring them the offerings, usually the kings have more gold and thus receive the most blessing. But to remain in the castle is often very safe, but it allows one to see things only from the sidelines and in straight lines–few things are always so linear.
I agree the torture is reprehensible and so is war. It is important that we try to take steps to avoid this coming into war from any direction. But until humanity rids itself of this stain, don’t expect it to be so handsome or gallant. Suffering is always bad, and to the victors go the remains. We should be careful about what we wish for.
We went into Iraq and a 100,000 dead Iraqis killed. We liberated the hell out of them. Now we flog ourselves for the torture of some individuals, makes quite a distraction away from the real crimes committed wouldn’t you say. How about we get down to it and hold some real accountability for what happened. Including those in Congress who declare themselves so sanctimonious lately, yes both parties since there are those who like to pounce on partisanship. They went so headstrong into this entire affair wrapping themselves in old glory and many wanting glory on almost a Teddy Roosevelt level as he marched up San Juan Hill with just as much spite for his soldiers as the politicians today showed ours in their mad dash to glory. Let them be the ones if they are so pure to cast the first stones.
Remember who is the worse killer out there next time you visit the ballot box.
Darren,
Good post. We should keep George Washington’s quote as an anchor so that we never allow the circumstances of war to change the core of our culture. We aren’t a nation of gang-banging murderers just because our government does nothing about black on black violence, are we?
Darren,
The psychologists who devised the “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the people who tortured detainees were not soldiers fighting on a battlefield. Besides, there are better and more effective methods for getting information from people in CIA custody.
There are certain unavoidable ironies applicable during war. There are soldiers condemned for acts done during war, justly or not, and even greater killings prosecuted against other persons reveled under the fanfare of heroism. We put in prison, in one example, a soldier accused of the murder of a score of civilians in Afghanistan and the bombardier of the Enola Gay, Thomas Ferebee, who killed over two hundred thousand persons and left as many more maimed and disfigured is recognized as a national hero. And what would have become of he and Curtis Lemay had the Japanese won the war? Or, for that matter Hideki Tojo.
Rules of war? Its rather an abstract construct crafted for times when humanity and convention are discarded. For the victorious they become the prosecutors, the defeated the defendants. And being far removed from the battle, it is just as easy to criticize as it is to wage a war when judging the soldiery and the enemy.
This is why we should as the quote of George Washington offers a measure of example to serve as a guide should we ever be in such a situation again as we are now. But don’t expect it to be so easy or so rigid when the next conflict arises.
I will leave it to Breaker Morant and his .303 Lee-Enfield Rifle to have a word about the duality of war,
Termidity? Is that one of OED’s new words of 2014?
Elaine – I have decided that termidity will be THE new word of 2015. It always takes some running time before the OED picks it up and runs with it. Inga should be using it by summer.
Ooopppps! Retreading should have been rereading. Have to be careful of auto-correct.
*****
Inga,
He needs something!
Perhaps Paul got confused because he needs some hydration?
Paul,
You need to learn how to read more carefully. Here’s an excerpt from that Vanity Fair article:
“The psychologists were actually designing the torture, overseeing its implementation, assessing its effectiveness, and getting paid handsomely for it. Mitchell and Jessen’s consulting business was ultimately awarded $180 million in contracts by the C.I.A., $81 million of which was paid by the time the agreement was terminated in 2009, according to the report.”
*****
I hope retreading that paragraph helps you understand what the author of the article wrote.
Olly
The ACA is a different matter.
In fact, go back to the day he mentioned the Hose Republicans signed him on.
Who was the first to comment wishing him the best of luck.
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/11/17/the-house-hires-turley-as-lead-counsel-in-constitutional-challenge/#comment-1345618
Bush and Cheney approved the torture, along with Congressional leaders, (gang of eight). Now there are calls for prosecution of central intelligence officers. There is something wrong with this picture.
Anyway, this was a convenient distraction for you lefties for a few days. Time to get back to current events. Merry Christmas!
I thought McCain’s father was some sort of Navy Admiral not some Gook.
No, but his Father had him tortured to save the rest of the world.
Paul: I thought John McCain was captured and held by the Vietnamese. Not the North Koreans. But maybe the North Koreans were training the Cong or the N. Vietnamese. Let us know.
BarkinDog – North Koreans loaned out their people just like we do.