![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rhetorical question
So, torture mongers and apologists explain that torture (according to the sources they choose to believe) works.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
no subject
no subject
OK, fair enough.
The cop also refused to let anyone take pictures of him at the accident scene. It seems he was an undercover cop, and having a photograph of him, in circumstances where he was known to be a cop, would have impaired his ability to keep his identity secret. I suppose it might have put his life in danger. If the wrong people had gotten hold of that photo, it would make it a lot easier to target him for reprisals, or to pre-emptively take him out.
And the way he drives, I guess he doesn't need any more risk factors in his life.
So I could see an intelligence agency destroying tapes of interrogations to keep the identity of interrogators secret. Given the fits people threw over the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, when she hadn't been a covert operator for years, and was not likely to be ever again, I can understand the desire to protect identities of agents who might be working under cover right now.
A second reason for destroying the tapes is that the CIA might not want details of interrogation techniques to leak out.
Indeed, this especially might be the case if they don't use torture.
I offer this premise: Non-coercive methods of interrogation may work better (or at all) largely because the subjects of these methods are convinced, somewhere in the back of their minds, that if they don't cooperate, eventually the gloves will come off and the "rough methods" will come out. If the CIA tapes leaked out and it became obvious torture was never used in interrogations, the non-torture methods would quit working.
no subject
Karl writes: "So I could see an intelligence agency destroying tapes of interrogations to keep the identity of interrogators secret."
Huh? Obscuring people's faces on video tape is a technique that has been understood for decades, now. Engaging in the criminal act of destroying evidence, instead of simply HIDING the identity of the interrogators involved, is a profoundly goofy suggestion.
Karl writes: "Given the fits people threw over the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, when she hadn't been a covert operator for years, and was not likely to be ever again..."
This excuse to commit treason is straight from the lips of Robert Novak. But if treason is to be excused, then I guess excusing torture is no stretch.
Karl Writes: "A second reason for destroying the tapes is that the CIA might not want details of interrogation techniques to leak out."
Huh? Details of legal interrogation are no secret. It is those pesky details of torture techniques that nobody wants to leak out.
This is the bottom line: If the CIA engages in torture, *or* if the CIA destroys recordings of questionable interrogations, then it may become very difficult to bring *real* terrorists to justice. This may make Robert Novak happy, but I sure hope that it does not make Karl Lembke happy.
no subject
It might also be the tapes show that "legal" methods like waterboarding are actually torture.
It might be they show tortures we still disavow are being done.
It might be they show torture isn't rare, but that the lowliest of suspects is being subjected to it.
It might be they show torture to be innefective.
As for Karl, it's best to ignore him, on this subject(you may make your own decision on other topics). He believes torture works, that those who are opposed to tortures he doesn't think are tortures are being willfully blind; because despite the people like myself who say it doesn't work, the CIA has a couple of apologists (with decidedly mixed motives, as they say they know, and imply they have performed, tortures being used) keep saying that torture as means of collecting useful information is useless, he still avers that it's quite the handy tool, and ought to be used more often.
no subject
Anything not dealing with your hobby horse is summarily ignored.
Just mentioning it. It's one of the reasons why I and others find your case lacking.
no subject
Let's be clear here.
I believe torture sometimes works.
You believe torture never works.
As I pointed out in my open letter to you here (http://karl-lembke.livejournal.com/159576.html), the truth is a bit more complicated than you like to present it.
According to the sources you choose to believe, torture never works. And since you define torture as any physical or mental coercion, you can't even detain a prisoner without torturing him, since absent coercion, the prisoner would not remain confined. (Now's your chance to clarify your definition, by the way.)
As evidence that forceful interrogation (again emphasizing that I draw the line between "torture" and "not-torture" in a slightly different place than you do) works, I cite sources you choose to disbelieve.
These include Ed Morrissey's friend here (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015994.php)
Asked about interrogation guidelines, and whether more assertive methods would ever be authorized, Colonel Stuart Herrington, an expert on interrogation retired from the United States Army,
says (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7):
(Emphasis added)
My point is, different situations need different techniques. Some of these techniques will be coercive.
Since you define anything the least bit coercive as "torture", then either torture works, or your definition needs some work.
I draw the line above that threshold, though I don't know exactly where it should go.
My main point is, I see the debate over where that line should be as an open one, and reasonable people can disagree.
To you, it is closed, and there are no reasonable or moral excuses for disagreeing with you.
no subject
Nitpick: It wasn't treason. No one was charged for treason. No one was even charged for disclosing a covert agent's identity. The only person charged was Scooter Libby, for lying to an investigator – the same crime Martha Stewart was charged with.
Oh? Where do I find them described? Cite your sources.
I also note an article here (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015994.php) where Ed Morissey discusses the question of whether waterboarding crosses the line into torture. An additional point was made:
So the details of what goes on during interrogation during SERE are classified, and this isn't even a "real" interrogation. Maybe what goes on during actual interrogations is unclassified, but that's something for you to show me, by showing where I can read the details for myself.
For the record, I note Ed (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016247.php) provides a bit more detail on the circumstances, including the fact that
It appears the tapes had been subpoena'd, in which case, someone should be in deep trouble.
My point is merely that the CIA may well have reasons to keep the details of what goes on during an interrogation secret, reasons besides Terry's hobby horse.
no subject
Karl writes: "It wasn't treason. No one was charged for treason. No one was even charged for disclosing a covert agent's identity. The only person charged was Scooter Libby, for lying to an investigator – the same crime Martha Stewart was charged with."
Only to the most vile criminal-dirtbag is it not treason. To the rest of us, it was the kind of war-time treason that gets the person who did it hanged by the neck, and they also hang by the neck everybody who helped him to do it.
Scooter Libby got a Presidential commutation of his prison sentence because he successfully blocked the investigation that would have resulted in the death by hanging of Cheney and Turd Blossom.
Anyone who values the Rule of Law is upset that our leaders willingly commit treason for cheap political advantage.
In response to my stating the obvious fact that the "details of legal interrogation are no secret", Karl writes: "Oh? Where do I find them described? Cite your sources."
Jeez, Karl, crack a book. I did a Google search on "Criminal justice" "Interrogation techniques" and I got 49,000 hits. How bone, stick, stone ignorant do you have to be not to know that any U.S. Junior College, State College, or University of any reasonable quality will have "Criminal justice" courses that teach "Interrogation techniques" using textbooks and everything.
no subject
It would be acceptable for Novak to claim it was accidental (but it requires we accept that Novak is too stupid to realize the CIA can't say "don't reveal her name because she's a NOC") but it's not acceptable for Rove or Libby to use that claim. They knew she worked at the CIA; they could have determined she was not covert before leaking her name.
(I'm omitting Armitage from this because he claims it was a slip. However, I've also heard it said that, golly gee, Armitage just *happened* to want to talk to Novak, something he never did, and just *happened* to let that crucial fact slip at just that right time. Armitage has a spook background; put that together, and this "accident" seems awfully well planned.)
no subject
"They could have determined..."
means
"They could have determined whether she was or not, and decided not to leak the name if they found she was (or couldn't tell, for sure, that she wasn't)"
They had a choice; the choice was obvious and part of their responsibilities. Even if they could truthfully say that they didn't know she was covert, they can't deny that they had a responsibility to determine if they were leaking classified information before doing so.
no subject
1: It's the heart of the matter. When someone alleges Plame wasn't covert they are saying the entire investigation was as empty of value as "Troopergate".
2: That allegation (that Plame wasn't covert) also says the CIA knowingly initiated a false claim of her covertness when they petitioned the DoJ to investigate.
3: Which means they are alleging perjury on the part of a whole lot of people, in order to... who knows. But it requires a conspiracy to get such a thing done.
TK
no subject
See, I was making a mild nitpick of the response to the claim, not the claim itself. It seemed obvious at the time :-).