By I think Dennis Blair sums up the whole torture debate pretty well:
Exemplifying the debate over the harsh interrogation techniques, it was also revealed yesterday that Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, sent out an internal memo last week that said the practices managed to produce some “high-value information.” That part of the memo was left out of what was released to the news media last week. Last night, Blair emphasized that while the techniques may have resulted in valuable information, it wasn’t worth the damage to the country’s reputation, and there’s no way of knowing “whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.” [Slate]
That is why I have been stating if the information they received was worth the blow back because from what I have seen so far, it was not. However, Blair also states he believes no one should go to jail over this either:
Blair, in his memo to employees in the intelligence community, wrote: “Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.” [Fox News]
The only way I see the lawyers that crafted the memos be prosecuted if if they felt that what they wrote was actually illegal, but wrote it anyway due to political pressure. The only way to prove this would be to go through all their e-mail which I assume is what the Justice Department is doing now. The only way I can see interrogators being prosecuted is if they exceeded what the memos recommended.
Here is some food for thought, if when the American spy plane crew was detained in China back in 2000, what would people in America think if the Chinese waterboarded the crew to get information out of them?
3:38 pm on April 24th, 2009 1
I don’t see how the attack on the US (9/11) can be compared to the American spy plane crew.
Reply
4:14 pm on April 24th, 2009 2
I also think the China plane incident is too off base to be given consideration.
I think the hypothetical I came up with is better and one we can easily recognize as having actually happened in the past:
What if the CIA had sent a couple operatives to blow up that nuclear reactor in Syria North Korea was building and they’d gotten caught before or after the act — and the exact same things as described in the Bush memos happened to them at the hands of the Syrian government?
I’d be pleasantly surprised, because I’d have imagined that much, much worse would be done to them – both to root out any other CIA covert operatives or further plots – before the operatives would have been executed. I’d have also taken it for granted the US government wouldn’t have uttered a peep about it – given the nature of the operation and the status of the CIA covert operatives.
And this is what has happened in the past: I remember a show on the History channel that dealt with the CIA. It showed a wall at CIA headquaters that was covered, if my memory is correct, with stars.
Each star represented a covert operative who had given his/her life in the line of duty. The stars were a blank. No names. No info about who they were, where they were, what they were doing, or what happened to them.
Now, do I consider each of those stars a gross violation of human rights and crimes for which the US State Department should have been demanding the leaders of the foreign governments in each of the nations those operatives were killed in should be brought before the International Criminal Court and tried for crimes against humanity? No.
And I believe it is easy to imagine that the majority of people on the left and right in America would think it ludicrous if – say – Pres. Bush had Condi Rice go before the UN to demand the leaders of Syria be arrested for crimes against humanity after they captured and really tortured and even killed the hypothetical CIA operative trying to blow up that nuclear reactor before it could be completed.
Why? Because before now, people have taken it for granted that covert operatives place themselves outside the normal bounds of the law when they accept their position and the missions they are on, and that is how it has always been.
If we understand that about covert operatives the US or Britain or France or Germany or Russia or China or some other nation with a covert intelligence agency —– why do we suddenly find the idea so repulsive that terrorist covert operatives captured in the United States helping to plan and carry out terrorist strikes — will face interrogation techniques that we’ve routinely done to our own service members and government people as training for the kinds of things they might face if taken hostage in a foreign country????
Reply
2:23 am on April 25th, 2009 3
Quick vote.
What if foreign spies illegally entered the United States with the intention of committing sabotage which would likely disrupt food and energy supplies in the Untied States.
Apart from affecting the ability of the government to function, their actions could cause widespread social disorder and possible starvation of millions of American citizens.
Suppose these spies were caught red-handed in the right location and with the right equipment to carry out their mission. Their direct connection to high-level government officials of a hostile nation were proven beyond a doubt.
If they might have information useful to protecting the United States against future attacks, might be able to give information on the tactics of other teams and might serve as a warning to other spies, would you authorize torture to collect this information?
Reply
4:33 am on April 25th, 2009 4
This is where Obama and I are going to start parting ways. He says he prefers to look forward and not look back. BULL$H!T, Mr. President. BULL$H!T! As a law professor, he should be very familiar with the term, precedent. You let this slide and it creates the excuse for future leaders to write memos to legitimize any violations of our laws and principals they see fit.
It was suggested after 9/11 that the terrorists want to change our way of life. They want to change who we are. When they do that they win. These are my benchmarks in the war on terror. They are scoring and it’s pissing me off.
Give the agents a pass because they were following orders? Why didn’t our soldiers get a pass when they were given orders to shoot prisoners or unarmed civilians? Why? Because those were unlawful orders and military personnel are required to make the judgement of what is lawful and unlawful, else they go to prison. Why does the civilian side of the government get a pass on this?
How could they know? We are told that the FBI Director pulled his agents out of the interrogations because they knew they were wrong. The FBI is part of the Justice Department. That should have been a big CLUE to the CIA agents that they were crossing the line.
Not just holding the agents and lawyers to account, but the medical professionals; doctors and psychologists who abetted this program. They should have their licences revoked.
President Obama had better not go wishy-washy on this or he is going to have a problem with me and like minded Americans who believe rules and laws should apply equally to everyone.
My understanding of civics is that the Executive Branch is obligated to execute the laws. It doesn’t have the discretion to decide which laws apply. If there is a question about the legitimacy or applications of laws, that is given to the Judicial branch to decide. Send it to court and have it done right.
The eyes of the world are watching.
Reply
6:54 pm on April 25th, 2009 5
#3 if you define torture as what is detailed in the Bush memos, which are techniques used by the US government in training some of its own people for decades, then, yes, I’d authorize their use.
#4 — on precedent — I am taking it you are like so many you hear screaming so loudly out there today —- that you (at least now) believe – techniques described in the memos – again – techniques we’ve used to train our own people for decades — have never been used in the past —
— that what the memos show was never used by the CIA or some other agency under administrations like those of Kennedy or Roosevelt or Carter or Clinton? That Bush is wholly unique in the use of these things?
If I could invent a time machine and go back to 1999 — I am firmly convinced that — if I polled people on whether or not they thought waterboarding or the like had been used by the CIA or the like in the Cold War —– the vast majority would say Yes.
I saw more than enough in the news and documentaries and in listening to people on the far left condemn America for much worse – and listened to others defend America against the charges — to hold this firm position.
That is why this is will be a losing position for Obama.
The Chomsky-ite, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright contingent in America is a small minority. Those people have long, long argued that the US government has always used much worse methods against enemies both foreign and domestic, and that in reality, the United States of America has been a bigger rogue nation than the likes of the Soviet Union and Cuba and so on.
The bulk of the American people have not and will not agree with that — even when they get back to remembering that they took it for granted things like in this terror memo did take place under the leadership of people like our beloved Pres. Kennedy – who was a Cold War warrior – or even the likes of Jimmy Carter – our human rights president.
I really can’t understand the amnesia that has infected so many people out on the blogs and in the news.
Reply
7:17 pm on April 25th, 2009 6
On rules and laws…
I can understand a lawyer having the position that laws are sacred and inviolable – but for the sake of argument — what about an administration that might send operatives to blow up that NK reactor in Syria? or even just to spy on another nation?
Any administration sending covert operatives and spies to another nation is breaking the law, right? So, they are all prosecutable. Why haven’t we been prosecuting them all along?
Everybody knows, or at least used to know, that even – say – Britain sends people to spy on the United States. We all know SK has gotten caught spying on the US…
Does that mean the heads of governments sending out those agents should all be brought to prosecution — brought before tribunals for high crimes?
What has happened to people in the world?
Has hatred of Bush really gotten this carried away?
People honestly can’t remember the past and what they thought before now?
How many of you out there steamed to the gills over the need to put Bush and Cheney and those acting under them in jail —- really believed previous administrations have acted differently or didn’t “break the law” through the use of spies or covert operatives?
The only people I can see right now maintaining any consistency are the Chomsky-ites…….and I can’t really believe that that point of view has now truly infected such a sizable portion of the population.
Reply
7:28 pm on April 25th, 2009 7
I think maybe my own view point – about what people are thinking out there – is being skewed by reading blogs and comment sections…
I do honestly believe that if I could have asked even the majority of Democrats about these issues —- before Bush ever stepped foot in the White House —- I’d find their thoughts on what happened in the past and what we should think about it —- totally different from what they are implying or saying about other times in American history….
Reply
7:23 am on April 26th, 2009 8
USINKOREA,
Wow. I didn’t think you had it in you to torture a couple of pretty women.
Reply
8:37 am on April 26th, 2009 9
Nice try but its nonsense….
Reply
9:37 am on April 26th, 2009 10
“Nice try but its nonsense….”
Is it now? You just specifically said you would authorize Bush-approved torture if the situation was as I presented it.
Now carefully read my previous posting again. This time, substitute North Korea for the United States. Substitute reporters for spies (or maybe they ARE spies). Consider if their actions of illegally entering the country and intentionally attempting to sabotage the North Korean government’s internal affairs could affect foreign aid of food and energy.
Now, consider if you would champion North Korea waterboarding these reporters to protect their interests in the same way you advocate America using it to protect theirs.
It seems your multiple standards of values are the real nonsense.
Torture is the wrong way to do business… especially if we have a catch-and-release program for the majority of guys we torture.
And, while it feels good to put some hurt on the bad guys, we all know they (and we) will say anything the torturer wants to hear. Empathy-based psychological interrogation works so much better. Cops get amazing confessions all the time… without torture.
Why pisss away expensive and hard-earned political capital… especially when the actual result ranges from minimal to completely misleading.
Reply
8:29 pm on April 26th, 2009 11
That’s why it is nonsense.
You tried to dress an apple in orange’s clothing and pretend you’d done something clever.
“intention of committing sabotage” — In order to pull your little trick, you worked it into your mind that what the reporters did could be classified as “sabotage”.
I knew you were trying to twist this around to try to make some parallel between the terrorist organization that pulled off 9/11 and those reporters, but it’s crap, and that’s why I answered straight forward.
“which would likely disrupt food and energy supplies in the Untied States” … “Suppose these spies were caught red-handed in the right location and with the right equipment to carry out their mission….”
Again – a fairly half-assed attempt here…
How are two reporters going to “sabotage” the “disrupting of food and energy supplies” with their cameras and microphones?
You wanted to paint a picture of someone setting off a dirty bomb in Iowa while being able to maintain your supposed artfully hidden agenda — which I am taking it was specifically that — because these reporters went to the border area of North Korea, and the North Koreans decided to take them into custody and put them on trial as spies, the US might cut off their food aid…
….or……did you have in mind that — what reporting these two did at the border might be so damn compelling to the world that the US and other nations would cut off food aid?
It won’t work.
You can try to dress it up as carefully as you want — but there is no way you can pull a parallel between the NK situation and the people interrogated by Bush.
It doesn’t even come close to working…
How are the actions of those reporters going to potentially cause the starvation death of millions of North Koreans which will lead to internal upheaval?
How could anybody except a regime like the one in Pyongyang equate reporting with that of a covert operative trying to blow shit up?
The spy plane incident with China is too different from the capturing of terrorist operatives to be of much value in comparison.
The same is true for your attempt to sex up the actions of these reporters and the possible consequences of their actions inside North Korea.
Reply