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.”
Sandi, conservatives should be ashamed of being torture apologists. Thank God we have people like Professor Turley who has for years spoken out against it. I wonder why Megyn Kelly doesn’t have Professor Turley on the show speaking about the illegality of torture.
Rectal Re-hydration is the same as an enema. Also used when a IV wasn’t able to be used, for severely dehydrated people. It’s not rape. . .smh
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/02/14/peds.2010-0952.full.pdf
Msjettexas – surely you must be wrong. Rectal rehydradration has to be torture.
If you didn’t watch Megyn Kelly you missed a true patriot! Dr. Mitchell, involved in Guantanamo interrogations explained so much that Democrats never asked. He didn’t want to go there, but when he thought of the Americans on Flight 93 who accepted their death, but stopped the death of who? The Capitol with Senators, Congressmen, and staff was their concern. And the WH. If they could do that, he could do what he could to help. He’s certain lives were saved. He should be revered and thanked. Thank God we have brave people who step up when times are difficult. Democrats should be ashamed of publishing a report without all the information they could get. But they did! Why? Their Senate seat?
Instead of torture, lets just behead them!
Inga – you have become a special snowflake. That is so sad. BTW I have no idea what WordPress notification feature is. I am not sure how to say this nicely but “You are not the boss of me.”
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/@bioethics/documents/content/ahc_content_433616.ppt
Medical Board Hearings for Doctors who torture.
*****************************
Paul, your comments are getting increasingly disturbing to me. Do not address me further regarding rectal rehydration and rectal feeding. Do not send me comments per WordPress NOTIFICATION feature. If you must go on speaking about rectal rehydration, do not address me personally. Make it a general comment. It is getting creepy when you continue to direct your comments toward me, especially after I specifically asked you NOT to.
And Paul, do not address me any further regarding rectal feeding or rectal hydration, it’s making me feel ill reading your obsession with proving it is not torture.
Inga – BTW, rectal rehydration is NOT torture.
Sandi. Drivel from physcicians groups? So you think you know more about what constitutes torture and rectal feedings than DOCTORS do? You years at IBM didn’t make you an expert on torture, or perhaps it did. However if you think that despicable man on the Kelly Files yesterday evening was a ” patriot”…. Well that sounds more like drivel.
Sandi,
Seriously, THINK. If the prisoners were ” knocked out” before the procedure, the doctors, nurses or medics would’ve inserted an IV for rehydration or a NG tube for feeding. There was no medical necessity to probe the rectum AT ALL. Also provide a link to a reputable source that say hey were unconscious during the procedure. I am truly blown away by the non medical people who say that no medical sources are being used that indicate it was torture and not medically necessary. I posted TWO different PHYSICIAN groups that say I was torture and NOT medically necessary. THEY ARE a medical source for pity sake. Max also posted a link to the same PHYSICIAN group that I did. Be aware that doctors and medical personnel that were involved in torture will most likely be investigated by Medical ethics and licensing agencies. The tortured thinking that it must take to justify such mistreatment of humans is sickening. No matter how vile, how bad, how dangerous they are human and when we fall to their level we come closer to being just like they are.
Inga – as I told you, you are not the boss of me. So, just because of that. To sedate the prisoner means getting close enough too him with a sharp object which could either be used against you or against him. You really need to think these things through.
BFM, I couldn’t agree with you more, thanks for pointing that out.
Inga, if you don’t believe a witness who was there and reports everything that happens, I can’t help you. I did talk with my Dr. recently. He doesn’t like a group of Doctors making decisions when they have no personal knowledge. I understand that. I agree. There’s an old adage, “believe what you see, half of what you hear, and nothing you read.”
Dr. Mitchell’s name was never to be released. The “government” made that promise. Now he is threatened. He got a call one day that said “leave your house, now!” His life is up in the air all the time because Democrats used his name without even talking to him. Never looked at the “government’s” promise. They have no honor!
And Sandii, please read more carefully before responding to something I’ve said to another person. I asked PAUL not to address me further, I did so for a specific reason which is none of your business. I DID NOT say that no one should discuss this topic or comment further. Sandi you often get things mixed up and it’s getting to be tedious to keep correcting you.
stevegroen, I live in San Diego. I’ll be sure no one I know goes to you because you can’t understand what Paul C. I did, and I’m not a lawyer.
Your requests were vague. Given what you wrote, I think he did a good job of trying. Though impossible.
Sandi – thanks for the support. 🙂
Sandi. WHO said they were sedated? Where did you get that info from? Or is that something YOU ASSUMED? Please LINK to a source that said the prisoners were sedated. If the prisoners were sedated as you think, that a medical person would not have inserted an IV for hydration and a NG tube for feeding INSTEAD of a rectal feeding and hydration is simply ludicrous.
http://m.ibtimes.com/what-are-rectal-feeding-rectal-hydration-doctors-call-cia-tactics-torture-1751952
Doctors call CIA tactics such as rectal feeding and rectal rehydration torture.
Inga – I do not care what some twitty doctors call rectal rehydration, it does not qualify as torture. BTW, you have to prove it is torture by some statute or international treaty the United States has signed. Until you can do that, it is not torture. Can I suggest a Tums to tide you over?
Rape by foreign object is not intended to inflict severe mental suffering?
18 U.S. Code § 2340
(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; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
stevegroen – you were kind enough to give us the US Code. Now parse it to show how this is torture. Then we can discuss you parsing.
“We are better than torture. At least we used to be.” It is naive to think we were ever better than torture. We have used our share of torture throughout all the wars, we just never heard about it. If there is a better way, I say try that first. However, I know that often time is of the essence when many lives can be saved and sometimes simple interrogation doesn’t always work.
I hate torture of anyone, but I don’t have an ultimate answer to making war prisoners give us answers we need.
How about not demanding an answer? They’re off the battlefield if you can even call it that and there’s no due process. That’s quite enough for a civilized society.
stevegroen – POWs do not get due process.
Paul Schulte,
Save it. Nearly every last one, if not all, of those being held is no prisoner of war. No war has been declared. Everyone held at GTMO must be afforded due process because each is on American soil, and by logical extension everyone held at black and rendition sites to avoid due process should be afforded the same because our government is inextricably intertwined with the detentions without probable cause.
stevegroen – prove that terrorists deserve due process.
steve, Nice civil and substantive response to my historical perspective.
Inga, Elaine M,, other thoughtful ones: Don’t get yourselves knotted up trying to explain facts to other commenters who think their will to power justifies torture, militancy, and a juvenile “Win, Win, Win” attitude. They say we “special snowflakes” wouldn’t even be here now if it weren’t for blood-drenched “heroes” armed with nuclear weapons and rectal tubes. Too bad; we are here and we are commenting and working for peace. After all, even a bunch of snowflakes can stop a military offensive in its tracks.
Timothy Roberts – it takes an awful lot of snowflakes to stop a military offensive. Can I mention the Battle of the Bulge?
For the record, I pretty much ignore anything Mr Cheney says these days (why is he still in the news?). As an original Nixon White House guy, his time has passed. He is a classic example of what I’ve referred to as “senior institutionalized bureaucrats” in DC…they come to town young and never leave. He is hardly alone in that distinction.
Correction: I said…
… my hot very humble …
Typo..should have been “not”…not “hot” My keyboard’s letters are no longer readable and my typing skills without looking are less than they once were. My proof reading could use some work as well it seems. 🙁
Yup… Darren did it…
Just sayin…
Our empirical pursuits as a nation creates many more needs for retaliation than those that the CIA discusses on a regular basis.
Darren said …
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.”
The thread winner in my hot very humble opinion.
My question: What is more important, emotional retrospection and seeking vengeance for things past, or stopping what is abhorrent?
My understanding is that the EIT’s have been ceased. Isn’t that the real goal?
Last time I checked, Bush 43 is no longer President, so why after 6+ years am I still hearing about him? Deflection? What? How does a “report” of “investigation” not include one single interview with anyone actually involved in the activities decried?
We ask a lot of those in uniform and those clandestine operators, and then we second guess them and claim we did not know? Hypocrisy defined.
I also know, without a scintilla of doubt, that the CIA has never acted alone, and never will. But I already said that.
Finally, I only wish I could have put together the words Darren used above…it is the inconvenient truth.
Darren, Substantive and wise comments. You must have worked the 3rd shift because that’s when you are @ your best. I will continue to say, this is a new type of war for which the old rules do not apply. Dems want to treat these murderous zealots who are wanton killers like we treat common car thieves and drug smugglers, in our criminal court. Hopefully that stupid notion will leave when the “smartest” president leaves office in a couple years. The Geneva Convention was a meeting of nations devised to try and give some sanity to war. It was a noble thought, and did do some good. But, there was little enforcement mechanisms to apply those laws. Countries like Japan ignored the Geneva Convention. All countries ignored the rules @ times. As stated previously, Patton had a no prisoner rule. One bullet to the head was the solution to any enemy soldier who surrendered. Prisoners slowed him down.
The more I read comments here the more I realize people are even more ignorant of history than I thought. These Jihadists are quite similar to Hitler. Both Hitler and now ISIS have the goal of world domination. They both had/have no qualms announcing that @ every chance. Hitler was able to marshal the anger of his people who were punished severely after WW1. Jihadists channel that same anger of Muslims oppressed by dictators for centuries. They have an even more ripe and plentiful group of men from which to choose. The German economy after WW1 was an inflationary nightmare. You had to use a wheelbarrow to carry money to the store just to buy necessities. The Middle East economy is even worse. Thomas Friedman pointed out in The World is Flat that the US produces more patents in ONE DAY than the entire Middle East does in a DECADE. The people of the Middle East are poor, angry, and many are illiterate. They are desperate people w/ nothing to lose.
Finally, the concept that all politicians seem to not grasp is that this Middle East culture respects power and strength more than ANYTHING else. Bush 41 to Obama, none of these Presidents have shown the ability to grasp this. We would have been better off staying COMPLETELY out of the Middle East. The biggest mistake was committed by Bush 41. When he stopped short of crushing Saddam Hussein the people of the ME saw that as us being defeated. Subsequent Presidents have shown what the ME culture shows as weakness. What we see as prudence, they see as weakness. And, as most people understand, perception is reality. Politicians like the soulless Diane Feinstein plays people w/ just a little knowledge like they are cheap guitars. As we know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Nick Spinelli wrote, “Patton had a no prisoner rule. One bullet to the head was the solution to any enemy soldier who surrendered. Prisoners slowed him down.” So, what was done in the past, right or wrong, is precedent which we must follow regardless of efficacy. With this kind of logic, Nick, every time you have a cough, head to the barber for a bloodletting.
And in any forced procedure the prisoner would be tied down. To think that the prisoner would be more cooperative with rectal feeding or rectal rehydration is ridiculous.
Some people’s ideas of what is an accepted medical procedure are tortured and twisted. First of all, rectal feeding of purred foods is never done. Secondly if the prisoner is not refusing liquids, rectal or oral or sub q or IV would not be necessary. In GTMO there is a base hospital, if the prisoners are on a starvation protest, They are taken there and they are force fed via NG tube. Never rectally. If one is dehydrated the easiest way to hydrate is sub q, which is under the skin. Not rectally. In a medical facility an IV is most often used for rehydration. Trained medics/corpsman have IV equipment and know how to use it, even out in the field. Rectal hydration, not necessary.
Inga – rectal rehydration is necessary if you want to stop the behavior. However, it is NOT torture. Calling it torture just shows how ignorant some people are.
Darren,
Well said again!
I believe that fundamentally, we will never eliminate war. You live long enough; even follow this blog long enough and you become a witness to how immune human nature is to civilized society. I believe we are born naturally narcissistic and through proper teaching and experience, we develop humility. I also believe we are born dependent and through proper teaching and experience, we develop our independence. Unfortunately for our nation, the administrative state cannot ‘progress’ a culture of independent, self-reliant and humble citizens.
The Rule of Law has been tossed around this thread (and blog) as if it will magically make one’s point more valid. How is it possible those on the left and right can invoke the same rule and be at complete odds on their point? I know we have educated, legal minds in this blog to provide technical perspectives but is there a more philosophical approach for the purpose of law and government that we cannot ignore? For me, when things simply make no sense, I’ll reference Bastiat for perspective:
“The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”