The New York Times has published a blistering editorial calling upon President Barack Obama to fulfill our obligations under domestic and international law and investigate and prosecute those responsible for the torture program under the administration of President George W. Bush. The American Civil Liberties Union is also calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program and possibly prosecute those responsible. The Obama Administration has steadfastly refused to prosecute anyone despite its admission that, to quote Obama, “we tortured some folks.” The political costs of such a prosecute were likely viewed as too high and Attorney General Eric Holder has again taken the politically expedient approach in avoiding any serious effort to hold those responsible for these crimes. In the meantime, many of those who would be prosecuted under domestic and international law have been writing books and giving interviews — casually discussing acts that are considered war crimes under international law.
The editorial, entitled “Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses,” takes the position long advocated by experts in the field and various academics, including myself. There is no question that we tortured people under this program. While there are plenty of torture deniers about, both U.S. and international law is clear. Waterboarding is torture and we have prosecuted both our own citizens and foreigners for this long recognized form of torture despite early denials from people like Ashcroft. Moreover, Obama has admitted that it was torture. Holder admitted it was torture. The United Nations has denounced it as a torture. Leading Republicans and Democratic leaders have denounced it as torture. The United States Senate denounced it as torture. However, not a single person has been prosecuted by the Obama Administration. Instead, the Administration has been threatening allies who have threatened to start their own torture investigation under international treaties.
I have previously written about the cynical calculation that led to Obama blocking the prosecution for those responsible for the torture program. He knew such prosecutions would be unpopular, and with so many constitutional principles since that time, he just did not see the value in adhering to principle (even those embodied within binding treaty obligations). Since Obama ran on a civil liberties platform, many expected an independent torture investigation as soon as he took office. After all, waterboarding is one of the oldest forms of torture, pre-dating the Spanish Inquisition (when it was called tortura del agua). It has long been defined as torture by both U.S. and international law, and by Obama himself. Torture, in turn, has long been defined as a war crime, and the United States is under treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
However, such a principle did not make for good politics. Accordingly, as soon as he was elected, Obama set out to dampen talk of prosecution. Various intelligence officials and politicians went public with accounts of the Obama administration making promises to protect Bush officials and CIA employees from prosecution. Though the White House denied the stories, Obama later gave his controversial speech at the CIA headquarters and did precisely that. In the speech, he effectively embraced the defense of befehl ist befehl (“an order is an order”). As I have written before (here and here), the Obama Administration has destroyed some of the core Nuremburg principles, particularly in its revisal of the “superior orders defense” to excuse U.S. officials.
The board notes that such an investigation would clearly include “former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos,” the editorial reads. “There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered the destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen.”
The New York Times asks whether the Obama Administration has “the political courage” to order an investigation. That question unfortunately has been loudly and repeatedly answered in the negative.
,b>Independent Bob….do you get the feeling, as I do, that we are sliding backwards as in sand on a steep slope? I must be weird that I find the younger folks I meet today, like a black 30 year old VP for a large financial company, who has become a good friend, a good sign. We met when I taught him to shoot pistols, on my daughter’s suggestion, an easy task because he is bright, and had no prior concept baggage to unload. The raucous hoopla-la in the media and on the street of places not near me, but very similar otherwise, seem to imply that we are doing so….e.g., sliding backwards. I don’t know how that re-evolved. Never-the-less, I refuse to acknowledge or accept the strident wails of the trouble makers…I’ll stick to the circle of friends my daughter has introduced to me. I am “Old Dude” to them (my kid’s nick name for me), but said with respect. They give me hope that what we all experienced in the 50’s & 60’s, for those of us who did anyway, was not for naught. I am not “color blind” (as the saying goes) in fact I find curiosity when meet people of a different hue, language, and ethnicity than me, both here and half a world away. I truly believe it kept me alive. How many times can I say that before it is a reality. Or is there something really wrong with me?
Reblogged this on Oxygen in Use! Smoking is OK! and commented:
I promise, if elected President, these people will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law- Both US and International, including the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
At some point this farce of Obama’s civil liberties administration must be exposed for what it is, a farce!
Only men can vote! And Black people are slaves! What ever happened to the amendment to allow women to vote and what was the civil war fought for. While things weren’t perfect, we’ve done some fixin!
mark: “namely a connection between saddam hussein and al queda, by cheney/bush regime who wanted political cover for invading Iraq”
Actually, Operation Iraqi Freedom did not depend on a Saddam-bin Laden alliance. Saddam provided “political cover for invading Iraq”, and law and policy cover, with his material breach of Iraq’s obligations under the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions.
That said, Saddam’s material breach included terrorism. UNSCR 687 (1991) mandated “Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;”
Saddam’s relationship with terrorists was a chief concern before 9/11. In his speech on Iraq to Pentagon personnel on February 17, 1998, President Clinton warned of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists”.
In fact, the Iraqi intelligence services (IIS) had their version of diplomatic relations with al Qaeda. As far as we know, their outreach just hadn’t reached a working relationship. But it was progressing in that direction. They had become at least neutral towards each other with a shared animosity for their common enemy, us. Moreover, while al Qaeda had gone to the head of the class on 9/11, they didn’t own a monopoly. Saddam’s IIS was capable in its own right and his terrorist network was wider than al Qaeda and included AQ affiliates.
Inga: “Isaac, most liberals who comment here have mentioned the sheer incompetence and lies that got us into the Iraq war and almost tanked our economy. I’m pretty sure everyone but the rightists here agree with you on that.”
The problem is “most liberals who comment here” refer to a demonstrably false narrative that is divorced from the actual law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sadly, I’ve found that they’re disinterested in learning the truth for themselves even when the primary sources for OIF – the bedrock US laws, UNSC resolutions, and UN findings that set the mission – are cited, quoted, and even linked for them.
“Most liberals who comment here” don’t want the truth about the Iraq mission. Instead, they’ve knowingly chosen a false narrative because their worldview depends on it.
Chuck Stanley said …
There are some here who would dispute that, and have made that abundantly clear.
Maybe so, but there are also some of us, even “right wingers” like me 😉 , who appreciate your opinions and comments, even if we disagree. It serves no purpose to just avoid posting them here…even the most hard headed of us, and I am the ultimate hard head, can gain from exposure to experience based anecdotes.
Yeah, I know I am being a “dick”…but it is my real name after all.
Aridog sez: “I’ve just never met a true sadist.”
**************************************
I have. You don’t really want to know. Trust me on that.
Chuck Stanley…I’ve already read your web page, and followed up otherwise…that is why I “presume” you are for real. I thought I was clear about that. If not, my bad. I still say, post what you think here as well as elsewhere…you will be adding to the conversation, not wasting your time. Or mine.
Aridog,
“….not wasting your time. Or mine.”
There are some here who would dispute that, and have made that abundantly clear.
mespo,
The story of Brown and Stigler really came alive for me when I got to spend some time with an airline captain from Vancouver who knew both men rather well.
Aridog,
Almost forgot my manners. Thank you for the kind words. Appreciated.
Thanks for the shoutout, Chuck. It was a fascinating and compassionate story so I included it in my Grave Under Pressure series here in 2013. I like your version on FFS just as well. Kudos.
Chuck Stanley…in addition to your post on Flowers for Socrates, I think you should have posted it here as well. You did effectively by providing the link, so thank you for that. In the past you’ve said you’d refrain from a comment now and then here, and that is our loss here. Your credentials, which I presume are valid, alone make your opinions worth the effort to persuade here. I have little use for “psychologists” per se, for reasons of a personal nature (too many in my experience have been locked on a theory and won’t consider alternatives), but in your remarks I find things I can grasp and that can modify my thinking. By itself, your comments get through where many others in your profession do not. Human behavior is a field I believe is a difficult study, but worth the effort for those who can remain dispassionate (not locked on a single theory) and say it like they see it. YMMV….
Aridog,
I believe mespo (Mark Esposito) beat me to the Charlie Brown/Franz Stigler story on this blog. Last year I posted it on Daily Kos. This year’s post is with a few edits. An interesting factoid; Fighter ace Gustav Rödel, who I quoted at the beginning of the story, was one of the unsung heroes who managed to get the “lost airmen of Buchenwald” from the hands of the Gestapo only a few days before they were to be hung from meathooks by music wire. He and ace Adolph Galland were officers of the old school, and by their deeds, had the chops to pull off the next to impossible regarding the Gestapo.
As far as my credentials go. See my web page at http://www.drcharltonstanley.com
Chuck, thanks for sharing your website with us. Blog rules do not allow us to read such things about contributors here unless shared with us on the blog. So thanks for that.
I found the following in your bio: “Dr. Stanley is an expert hypnotist and interrogator. He has been a consultant to a number of State and Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies on issues of forensic hypnosis and confessions. State and Federal Courts have qualified him as an expert on interrogations, confessions and the Miranda warning.”
I am curious about your opinion on the role of hypnosis as an Enhanced Interrogation Technique. Would this be an ethical method for the CIA to use? Would it be an effective method of interrogation?
david, I think that a variant of the Scharff method would have been effective. Instead of a beer bash for the POWs, the CIA could have used a pot party with Alice B Tolkas brownies without telling them it had pot. While it might not be legal with the Geneva Conventions on treatment of POWs, I think that a case of mistreatment before the ICC would be laughed out of court for doing that. It would DEFINITELY be laughed out of court if the defense handed out a sample of the brownies for the justices to eat. The rest of the world would only think that those are some damned smart cookies for doing that.
randyjet wrote: ” I think that a variant of the Scharff method would have been effective.”
Isn’t that basically what waterboarding was? Scharff had the threat of handing the prisoner over to the Gestapo for torture. The CIA had the threat of handing the prisoner over for Enhanced Interrogation. They are both a play from good cop / bad cop.
david, I suggest you READ about Scharff and USMC Major Moran. It is not that hard to find. NO Waterboarding had NOTHING to do with their methods. Then you slander the Luftwaffe by implying that they would turn over POWs to the Gestapo, when in FACT the opposite was the case. The US and Brits knew that was not about to happen. The method Scharff used that I was referring to was giving the POWs a beer bash together in a room that had bugs planted all over it. Since Muslims do not drink liquor, I was suggesting that they have a pot party with brownies and lemonade in the same kind of setting. The only difference is that with the pot party, you would not need to have troops ready to stop any fights that might break out.
Randy,
Ever get tired of arguing with a signpost?
Check your email. Sending an attachment.
randyjet wrote: “david, I suggest you READ about Scharff and USMC Major Moran. It is not that hard to find. NO Waterboarding had NOTHING to do with their methods.”
I think my point went completely over your head. It is not waterboarding per se that I was talking about, but the aspect of having a good cop / bad cop routine. Following is how Wikipedia describes Scharff’s technique of interrogation:
“A prisoner was frequently warned that unless he could produce information beyond name, rank, and serial number, such as the name of his unit and airbase, the Luftwaffe would have no choice but to assume he was a spy and turn him over to the Gestapo for questioning. For Scharff, this technique apparently worked quite well. In addition to initially preying upon his prisoner’s fears of the infamous Gestapo, he portrayed himself as their closest ally in their predicament, telling them that while he would like nothing more than to see them safely deposited in a POW camp, his hands were tied unless the prisoner gave him the few details that he requested to help him properly identify the prisoner as a true POW.”
If you have an understanding of Scharff’s technique that contradicts this description, perhaps you should consider editing this entry in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff
Scharff had the threat of the Gestapo at his disposal, which aided his quest for information. The CIA used waterboarding as the bad copy, to get information given to the good cop who wine and dined the prisoner and put forward his ability to keep the prisoner away from the bad cop if he could give some information to his superiors. The threat of turning the prisoner over to the Gestapo as a spy was a much bigger stick than the threat of waterboarding. It seems to me that most of you who consider waterboarding to be torture never listened to the Mitchell interviews to learn how waterboarding was used to gain intelligence from guys like Zubaydah and KSM.
Chuck Stanley….your summary (on FFS) of the story, and excellent summary if I may say so, reminds me of the day, mentioned here previously, I laid down my weapon and played baseball with some local national children. Even in war there are moments when one can be human … however, that said, I’d say both of your descriptors of courage apply to those of use who were soldiers and Marines. I still assert that soldiers are the first among all who desire peace more than anything else. Even those you decry or feel embarrassed about, in your profession no less, were not much different than me. I’m pretty sure they’d opt for peace and no EIT if they had that choice. I can be wrong. I’ve just never met a true sadist.
War is ugly for the most part for what it does to ordinary men and women. Short the Lt. Calleys of the war many of us were in, where he just went plumb of the rails, I can’t fault the soldiers and marines who had to trudge every day in to a fight they’d rather not have had. The Warrant who stopped Calley had the most courage because he had the most sanity. Sanity is a scarce commodity in warfare, because war itself is an act of insanity, symbolic opf a total breakdown of communication and shared ideals, but it is there, as you’ve illustrated. I will agree that acting against one’s instincts, given the harshness of war, is of the highest level of courage. Momentarily you are acting on your own values, not those of either side per se. It is an extreme risk. The story you related is an example of just that.
Paul,
Spot on; it was a throwaway comment because not one person in any of these “torture” threads has admitted they would NOT condone torture if it was the last option to save an innocent family member.
The fact the Continental Army would effectively ‘torture’ their own under the Articles of War diminishes the ‘what would George Washington do’ argument.
To think that being “American first” means condoning torture under any circumstance to some folks…
Inga – you never fail to disappoint.
What’s the difference between a pepperoni pizza and a pilot?
A pepperoni pizza can feed a family of 4.
Funny Nick! For most pilots not at the majors, it is sad, but true.
Chuck, your link to The Christmas story of Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown is spot on for this, and, indeed, any time of year. It’s also spot on for this entire discussion thread.
I’ve read the book that your link summarizes, “A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II.” It’s a wonderful, moving read.
Perhaps Joe Galloway, who received journalism awards and a Bronze Star for valor for his coverage of the Ia Drang battles in Vietnam, described the book best: “From the horrors of the most savage war in history emerges this beautiful story of a brotherhood between enemies. Simply told, splendid, and well worth the read.”
Take heed, all who comment here.
Stu – you cannot imagine how much I delight in being told what to do.
If AA93 had flown on into the Capitol, how would we have gone on? We’d find ways, of course, because we had to. But a lot of our laws would be useless.
When Truman decided to drop the bomb, can you put yourself in his place? Could you feel the agony and desperation? He was a Christian who I’m sure prayed a lot. And after praying he decided some lives lost keeping millions alive was necessary. And then he had to do it again! And again he dropped the bomb.
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings, killing thousands. We were at war. With who? Suddenly, our way of life changed. In ways we didn’t even know then. After capturing KSM, our intelligence came to the President saying nothing had worked, they needed enhanced methods. I don’t know when we decided enhanced measures weren’t going to be used anymore.
But a lot of things in our lives changed. Would we have accepted the difficulty of getting on airplanes before 9/11? No. We couldn’t be what we were. We’d been attacked and things changed. I’m sure on 12/8/41 life became completely different.
So water boarding was used, minimally, and was stopped when there was no more to be gained. I am a younger generation maybe. But if we needed these measures to get information to help our military or protect our citizen, fine. I would have said use everything you have to get as much as you can.
This is a different kind of enemy, with little regard for human life. What kind of monster, yes monster, because a human being could not chop a little girl’s head off. This is a war that may never end. Some of our laws make fighting this one more difficult. So we may have to change our outlook, because we are fighting a different kind of evil.
So quit yammering about charging people with crimes and help your military instead of tying their hands behind their backs. Evil can not be destroyed by Mr. Nice Guy. Arguing at home doesn’t help. Suddenly our military are worrying about being charged with something they were ordered to do. Get on our side. Forget your party and your politics. Be an American first!
I was unaware that torturing innocent people was being an American. They did that to about 20 some people who they picked up as a result of that torture of the terrorists giving names to make the torture stop! Not only is that un-American, but it is useless and wastes time, money, and is also NOT American at all. Unless of course, you like being a sick sadistic person like Cheney.
I suggest you read about REAL interrogators in WWII who did NOT use torture to get the intel. Oh, and by the way, THAT intel was GOOD, not made up and saved countless American lives. In the case of Hanns Scharff, he was working for the Germans and became an American citizen, and NOT charged as a war criminal and became friends with his former POWs and was hired by the US after the war. As for the view of a real combat veteran and the most decorated US soldier in the US Army, Col. David Hackworth, as to torture I suggest you read his book,About Face. He relates how an intel officer who was the spoiled brat of a Army General was torturing a VC POW. He told the brat, if he kept it up, Hackworth would SHOOT him on the spot. The officer knew Hackworth and wisely decided to desist. THAT is what REAL Americans in combat do!
Randy,
Not just a real American, a real soldier. In any army, for any government.
There are two kinds of courage…
One kind lets you stand up to your enemies.
The other kind lets you stand up to your friends.
I just posted the Christmas story of Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown. They both represented the latter kind of hero.
randyjet – torturing people is as American as George Washington.
The NYT should have been charged as traitors when they published information the Pres asked to be held, lives were in danger. They published. Professor Turley, if necessary I would personally water board someone threatening your family.
“I must have my scream”
– Emperor Cartagia-Bush-Cheney
Dr. Selkin,
I know that you already know this, but what is not understood by most–even the most well meaning–is the fact that in tests and demonstrations, the subject knows the demonstration will end, and they will not suffer permanent harm or death.
In a torture situation, or as the so-called “interrogators” and politicians euphemistically call it, “Enhanced Interrogation Technique,” the subject does not know that. For all the victim knows, this may end in death by drowning. Terror will make them confess to killing Cock Robin and kidnapping Jimmy Hoffa if that is what they think their captors want to hear.
I put the word “interrogator” in quotes because they are no more true interrogators than I am a circus acrobat. They are sadistic goons, and in the case of Mitchell and Jessen, are a total embarrassment to the profession of psychology. As I pointed out to some of my colleagues yesterday, the good news was that it took $40M apiece to get the psychologists to sell their souls. The bad news is that I know some who are willing to work a lot cheaper.
This is my bailiwick, and I do believe I know more about interrogation than any of the enablers and apologists for EIT. Especially Dick “Five Deferment” Cheney. It is really not very hard to to gather actionable intelligence if you know what you are doing. But then, my role models are people like Hans Scharff and Sherwood Moran, not Mitchell and Jessen.
Yes Chuck, as always, in each paragraph of your latest post you’re right on target. So, concerning your first paragraph, that’s why the constant media references to our war fighters (the preferred term these days) who go through the SERE program is ridiculous.
No matter how tough and how mean-sprirted the administrators of the water boarding part purport to be, the trainees know that they’re going to walk away. Unhappy and upset, to be sure, but still walk away.
Stu
Chuck – you use the term “this is my balliwick.” Are you referring to interrogation? And if so, how is it your balliwick?
“There is no denying that many of America’s founding fathers opposed torture. They opposed it on the battlefield as a relic of human barbarism more enlightened minds sought to leave behind. They opposed it as a tool used by absolute monarchs to extract confessions for use in trials against those accused of crimes. They opposed it as a tool of punishment.
As a matter of policy, America’s enhanced interrogation program is not designed to produce any of these effects (whether they do as a practical matter is a different question.) To the contrary, America’s policy toward prisoners of war goes far beyond anything General Washington would have imagined. Current military regulations require a high standard for maintaining not only the physical health of prisoners, but for their psychological and spiritual as well.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/19/would-general-george-washington-approve-of-todays-torture-policies/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=d5e6de4468-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-d5e6de4468-79248369