What they said
Jul. 26th, 2007 09:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumIt ain't none of it new to any of you. I've said it before, long, loud and at tedious length.
And I've been mocked, insulted, ridiculed berated, praised, lauded, pointed to [good and ill], linked, and, mostly, ignored.
In today's WaPo a pair of guys with more pull than I have are arguing some of my points.
War Crimes and the White House
An excerpt.
This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."
Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."
In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."
And it's wrong.
There are moral arguments as to why it's wrong. There are utilitarian arguments as to why it's wrong. Either ought to trump the, specious, claims that it can save lives.
Why? Because as I keep saying, using torture as a means of collecting information doesn't work. As a system, it fails. Someone might tell the truth, but the amount of non-truth which enters the system buries it.
There are those who pretend that's not the case. That somehow we can sift the truth from the lies; without having any troubles. That somehow the dedicated bad person, who is willing to plant bombs, bury people alive, whatever fantasy of justification the torture mongers want to trot out, will somehow break when his body is beaten, his flesh is torn, his mind is assaulted with terrors, the electrodes are supplied with current, the water rises past his nose and mouth, his bones broken, his sleep deprived, his environment changed, etc., etc., etc., ad naseum.
They are wrong. The dedicated will hold out until the bomb goes off. The ignorant, when tormented with those things, will lie; just to make it stop.
If the dedicated break, the things they say will go into the pile with all the lies. Worse, the lies will be made to conform to a narrative established by the interrogators, because they will look for confirmation of previous stories (can we say, "Satanic Rituals" and "McMartin Preschool"? I knew we could).
When cops, without the aid of torture can get so much in the way of confessions to things which didn't happen, what will prevent more, vigorous means from getting bad data?
Nothing.
To go back to the column.
To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
Following orders isn't a defense. It's not even a decent justification.
When the means are something that doesn't work, the ends, no matter how good they look on paper, can't be justified, no matter how clever the sophistries.
And I've been mocked, insulted, ridiculed berated, praised, lauded, pointed to [good and ill], linked, and, mostly, ignored.
In today's WaPo a pair of guys with more pull than I have are arguing some of my points.
War Crimes and the White House
An excerpt.
This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."
Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."
In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."
And it's wrong.
There are moral arguments as to why it's wrong. There are utilitarian arguments as to why it's wrong. Either ought to trump the, specious, claims that it can save lives.
Why? Because as I keep saying, using torture as a means of collecting information doesn't work. As a system, it fails. Someone might tell the truth, but the amount of non-truth which enters the system buries it.
There are those who pretend that's not the case. That somehow we can sift the truth from the lies; without having any troubles. That somehow the dedicated bad person, who is willing to plant bombs, bury people alive, whatever fantasy of justification the torture mongers want to trot out, will somehow break when his body is beaten, his flesh is torn, his mind is assaulted with terrors, the electrodes are supplied with current, the water rises past his nose and mouth, his bones broken, his sleep deprived, his environment changed, etc., etc., etc., ad naseum.
They are wrong. The dedicated will hold out until the bomb goes off. The ignorant, when tormented with those things, will lie; just to make it stop.
If the dedicated break, the things they say will go into the pile with all the lies. Worse, the lies will be made to conform to a narrative established by the interrogators, because they will look for confirmation of previous stories (can we say, "Satanic Rituals" and "McMartin Preschool"? I knew we could).
When cops, without the aid of torture can get so much in the way of confessions to things which didn't happen, what will prevent more, vigorous means from getting bad data?
Nothing.
To go back to the column.
To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
Following orders isn't a defense. It's not even a decent justification.
When the means are something that doesn't work, the ends, no matter how good they look on paper, can't be justified, no matter how clever the sophistries.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 06:42 am (UTC)"Experts"
Date: 2007-07-31 02:09 am (UTC)At some point, we may wind up looking at stated or implied agendas. Terry has voiced strong opposition to torture, and has stated that "torture doesn't work". I'm interpreting this as meaning "there exist no cases where torture has worked".
At least one of Ross' experts also opposes torture, but concedes that "aggressive methods" have obtained usable information. If he considers these aggressive methods to be torture, then this would seem to be an admission against interest, and I'd be inclined to give this opinion a little more weight.
Now, the problem is, based on what I've read, Terry has a very good point, and I'm inclined to believe he's mostly right.
Unfortunately, he has taken positions that tend to destroy his credibility. For example, he refuses to address the cases where torture has, apparently, worked in anything approaching a calm manner. This gives him the appearance of a fanatic who reacts to opposition with a fit of hysteria.
In contrast, here's another person who claims some expertise in interrogation, interviewed (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7) on the Hugh Hewitt program:
For the most part, what Terry has said about this scenario. But later on, he continues:
There are various levels of aggressiveness that are used, depending on the situation, but there are levels of aggressiveness beyond which we just don't go.
He also tends to argue points that are not the one being considered. He attempts to rebut the notion that torture might, on occasion, work, by citing examples where his preferred methods work.
This is highly flawed logic. It's like arguing that socket wrenches work very well for tightening and loosening bolts, and therefore channel-lock pliers don't work.
For the moment, I'm not arguing whether one tool works better than any other, or whether Terry's preferred tool works in all possible cases. I'm just asking for a serious, professional response to apparent evidence that some other tools work too.
Perhaps he's uncomfortable with a purely moral/ethical argument, and feels he has to buttress it with a black-and-white utilitarian argument, even if it means an uphill battle against thousands of years of practice and occasional cases where, in spite of what we may wish, it does work.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 02:40 am (UTC)What P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner, the authors of the op-ed, wrote was accurately quoted in Terry's post, but I don't think it accurately represented the letter or intent of the Executive Order (helpfully linked from the op-ed.)
They described the order as saying:
Somehow, I come to a different reading than Kelly and Turner do. The way I read the order, it declares that any "confinement and interrogation program" (CAIP) must not include a number of practices, including torture; mutilation; acts of violence comparable to murder or torture; any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by various laws; willful acts done for the purpose of humiliating an individual; or denigration of an individual's religion, religious practices, or religious objects.
I also note that the Order bans "willful acts done for the purpose of humiliating an individual", and not "for the express or sole purpose". I would interpret this as meaning that you're only in the clear if you can show there was no intent to cause humiliation. (Otherwise, the Order would ban cavity searches and medical exams, too.)
I'm not sure what "experts" might say, but based on a fairly careful reading, I'm inclined to believe at least some people have skimmed through the Executive Order, reading just enough to interpret in an outrageous manner, and then thrown a fit onto a printed page.
What their precise motives are remain, I fear, outside my particular area of expertise.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-02 03:44 am (UTC)Yes, "for the purpose of humiliating" appears to be sufficiently ambiguous as to be a scot-free thing -- under U.S. Law the prosecutor would have to prove (or convince a jury/judge) purpose or intent, which, I understand, tends to be extremely difficult. As it stands, "we thought she might have a weapon concealed in her rectum, so we had to reach in and feel around to make sure she didn't" would probably be an adequate defense, at least for a Court Martial. Any humiliation would be merely incidental, as a kind of "collateral damage". As you're aware, I'm sure, different people have different concepts of "an acceptable level of collateral damage" in various circumstances. As it happens, I (&, presumably, quite a lot of other people) consider the loopholes the Current Administration has created to be unacceptable. I do not, and do not ever expect to, tolerate the idea that my country will officially accept a policy of treatment of helpless captives that permits the infliction of excruciating pain (as long as it doesn't "result in permanent organic damage") and treatment that renders the prisoners insane. And the guidelines/Orders President Bush has placed in operation _do_ permit such things.
I haven't read the entire Kelly & Turner article, and perhaps won't get around to it, but.... Yes, as you suggest, their precise motivations would be difficult to determine. I think it's reasonable, however, to assume that one of their strong motivations is to remind everyone that the people who've been controlling the Republican Party for the past decade (or maybe two decades) have established a really remarkable Track Record for saying, passing laws, as doing things that are different from, and often opposite to, their purported intent. That's something all Americans need to know more about, and to be reminded of, frequently. We are not dealing, here, with principled people who respect and follow the Spirit of the Laws and the Constitution.