There has been a great deal of rumbling lately about what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knew about “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e., torture) and when she knew it. There appears to be evidence to suggest that her public pronouncements on the issue have not been truthful.
The latest to entry to fray is Karl Rove in the WSJ:Congress and Waterboarding
So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?
First, let me say that if Pelosi has lied about her knowledge of the situation, she should pay a serious political price.
Second, we all do understand that even if Pelosi did know and even if she lied with impunity, that doesn’t actually validate the techniques in question nor does it provide moral, ethical or legal cover for the actions themselves, yes? It may well reveal a cowardly, lazy and duplicitous set of leaders in the Congress who haven’t taken their oversight responsibilities seriously, but in the grand scheme of things that won’t be a shock.
So, while it may well be that the GOP/pro-torture crowd will be able to score political points here, it doesn’t settle the basic debate, not by a longshot. And yet when I hear/read it discusses it seems as if there is a certain triumphalism evident by those criticizing Pelosi. Perhaps this is because at the end of the day, so much of political discourse these days (and perhaps always) seems to be fundamentally focused on the point-scoring aspect rather than the actual policy issues at the heart of a given discussion.
Sphere: Related Content
May 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Just some thoughts on your thoughts ( I KNOW you’re so anxious for that! ):
First, is she did lie, who’s going to invoke the serious political price? It won’t be the Dems. And, since it wasn’t under oath or in any “official” capacity, there is no legal recourse. So, there’s really nothing anyone can do to her about her lieing. Besides, it would be far, far, far, from the first time she’s done that. ( No Dems ever had ANYTHING to do with the financial crisis. No Dems had ANYTHING to do with the wiretapping…. )
Second, it’s not so much a cowardly lazy Congress that’s the issue. It’s the fact that this issue is the core of her arguments over the last four years that Republicans are bad, and no Democrat ever had anything to do with the evil Bush Administration. The issue of torture is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not Pelosi lied, again. The issue it does affect is her, and other Democrats, wanting to publicly crucify people who were involved in the decision making process over what methods to use. Now that Pelosi is being tied to the decision making process via her briefings of what was going on during the decision making process, it makes it real hard to press the issue any farther without implicating herself, and others, even more. Tie this in with her knowledge of the wiretaps and it really complicates her ability to push the partisan witch hunt any further. That is a good thing for this country.
There definitely is triumphalism evident by those criticizing Pelosi. Four four years we’ve had to put up with her “Culture of corruption” crap. And, it’s apparently worked via the wild support of most major media. The message has been hammered mercilessly that Bush was not only abusing our civil rights, but was a war criminal as well. Now, we find out, Nancy Pelosi was right in the thick of not only the wiretaps, but the torture issue as well. It won’t affect the torture issue, but it should put a hammer on her trying to prosecute Bush people for purely partisan motivations. And, when left wing pundits go ponder the wiretap and torture issues, they’ll have to do it with at least some reticance since their left wing demi-god was apparently right in the thick of the decisions to allow them whether she knew it or not.
So, I don’t see this as indicative of a lazy Congress, I see this as yet another example of just how dangerously stupid Nancy Pelosi is.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Since there’s been a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress since 2006, at the very least it suggests more than that. First, it suggests that the current Congressional leadership deems achieving and holding its majority substantially higher in its hierarchy of values than eschewing torture. Second, it certainly makes us wonder if they wouldn’t do exactly what they’re condemning.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The latest to entry to fray is Karl Rove
Thank God we have Karl Rove to head the truth brigade!
May 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think Moonage hits the nail on the head. Democrats, including Pelosi (or maybe that should be *especially* Pelosi), have been saying that waterboarding is torture (there aren’t too many complaining about milder interrogation techniques such as open slaps across the face). Not only is waterboarding torture, but it’s so obviously torture that only a barbarian would bother to argue otherwise. There is no set of fact/extenuating circumstances/context/etc. that would make waterboarding anything less than torture. Ever. Anybody who ever heard a description of waterboarding would know without doubt and without the need to consult lawyers that it’s torture. It’s not even a close judgment call.
That’s essentially their argument. So when it turns out that these very same Democrats did not immediately condemn the practice when they knew without a doubt that the CIA was in fact waterboarding detainees it becomes harder for them to claim waterboarding is obviously torture in every instance. Unless they want to also claim to support torture.
The “pro-torture” side is in a better position. That side argues that the way the CIA waterboarded (small amounts of water that don’t enter the body versus large amounts of water that do enter the body) was not torture, so their involvement did not endorse torture. Which, of course, would not make them “pro-torture,” but maybe “pro interrogation techniques more effective than good-cop/bad-cop routines.” Which would make the other side …
May 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Whether or not Democrats knew something and did not object as they should have does not logically mean that a) the actions weren’t torture nor does it b) mean that they were effective. It simply would mean that they knew something and did no object as they should have done.
For me, I wish Congress had had the guts to outlaw the practice to begin with.
As it stand, to me, controlled drowning of a person in your power is torture.
And there is insufficient evidence to suggest, indeed some that suggests otherwise, that it was an effective technique.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
had the guts to outlaw the practice to begin with
I’m not so sure about that. Once torture is specified in statute, it implies that any torture technique that doesn’t match the specifications is legal. I believe in law school they call this slicing the salami.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It would depend on how the statute was worded, one would think.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
First, let me say that as a liberal who is HUGE on the torture issue, I don’t care if Pelosi goes down. I have no loyalty to any person or party that supersedes this issue. There’s some back and forth about how much she really knew and how much she could have done about it, but I don’t really care. Let it all be investigated and let the chips fall where they may. I have no doubt that some Dems were complicit, and they should get whatever’s coming to them for that. I think Dr. Taylor has it exactly right. There’s some triumphalism about this point but it doesn’t change the underlying issue at all. If the thought of having some Dems implicated is what it takes to get the Republicans on board with a truth commission or some other investigation, then I’m all for it.
Now for some more minor points:
- Dave: The “majority since 2006″ argument always gets trotted out, though usually on other issues. It ignores the fact that they had a single vote majority in the senate so it only takes one person like Lieberman or Nelson to derail it. Add to that the Republicans denying cloture on almost everything and a president who suddenly discovered how to veto, and you have a majority without any real power. On torture specifically only a few people were given access to this information and they couldn’t talk to anyone about it, not their staff, not a lawyer to ask about its legality. I’m not clear on what their options were, and I say that honestly: maybe they had actions they could take, maybe they didn’t, maybe they practiced willful ignorance. Regardless, those things are no longer the case so going forward I certainly plan to hold them accountable for any inaction on this issue.
- Max: The failure of some Democrats to blow the whistle on torture, provided they were actually informed and had means to do so, both of which may very well be the case, does not undermine the argument that it’s torture. Think of it this way: when the Republicans fret about the deficit and debts passed on to future generations, it’s rich considering their own hand in it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate concern.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
My point is that while it makes intuitive sense that a ban on a specific technique would help clarify the issue, it would in fact do the opposite regardless of the wording. The ban on torture was absolute (”vague” in wingnut parlance) for a reason. If it isn’t it encourages gaming of the ban through weaselly Zeno’s paradoxes.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Which is why this is such as delicious issue. Pelosi (and various others — Rockefeller, Schumer, etc.) had no problems with the process when they thought that’s what the voters wanted. Qualms with the procedures coincided with the ability to score political points with said procedures. The fact that the last year’s position is no longer operative is why the current search for a newly defensible foothold is so interesting.
What a tangled web we weave …
May 15th, 2009 at 2:44 am
You have validated my point about the “pro-torture” label, namely that it is incorrect to label those who belive waterboarding is not necessarily torture as “pro-torture”; just as it is incorrect to label those who believe it is torture as “anti-effective interrogations” (or labeling the Democratic Party the Social Democratic Party).
I truly believe waterboarding is not necessarily torture, and I realize you truly believe that it is. Likewise I believe there is sufficient evidence that it was effective — including statements from people with access to that information ( http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/what-waterboarding-really-revealed/ , http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/ ) — but I realize that you are not convinced about waterboarding’s effectivenes. As such, it would be wrong for me to mislabel your position based on my opinion; and I would expect the same courtesy from you.
However, that is tangential to the main issue; that major Democrats made political mileage by railing against President Bush, the DOJ and the CIA, and the sincerity of their concern is now in doubt. Frankly, by flinging over-the-top accusations they ended up painting themselves in a corner. Maybe a truth commission isn’t a bad idea after all.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:58 am
What’s wrong with torturing ones enemy when he/she has information one needs desperately?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I am unclear on what point I am validating by calling something by the name that I think is appropriate. I think that waterboarding is torture, therefore I see being pro-waterboarding (along with a host of other techniques) as being pro-torture.
I am willing to allow, by the way, that some useful information (along with a bunch of nonsense conjured to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear) might can be gleaned via torture, but that still doesn’t make it anything other than torture. You seem to be mixing the issues of efficacy with the issue of what to call something. Indeed, your argument seems to be that because you think that waterboarding gave us useful information that it oughn’t be called torture. That doesn’t track logically.
The only reason that the efficacy issue gets mixed in is because if did work, it makes it easier for proponent of the techniques to support them. Beyond that, the way that Cheney, et al, have attempted to frame the debate in one of “did it work or didn’t” versus “should we even be doing it or not”).
Let’s say that they used a technique that is unambiguously seen as torture, such as cutting fingers off with wire cutters and let’s say it worked and produced pitch-perfect intel. It would still be torture, yes?
See, to me, it is the main issue, with the hypocrisy of politicians being the secondary one.
In that we are in agreement.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I don’t understand the need to pin people into very specific camps of “pro-torture” or “anti-torture”. It doesn’t accomplish anything. Case in point, Nancy Pelosi, who according to herself, has always been anti-torture. However, she approved torture techniques in 2002 by not objecting. There are plenty of people, myself included, who hate torture for any reason. It disgusts me. However, what disgusts me even more are people who take it to the next level and kill innocent people for whatever reason they see fit. So, if snipping off a finger or pretending to drown them stops that practice, I’m all for it. Now, to me where this entire issue has gotten FUBAR’d is it is one thing to actually torture people, totally another to have them THINK that you would. Waterboarding and scary torture techniques could deter some people from actively engaging us. If we yell out to the world that we’ll treat them to three nice meals a day on a Caribbean island and cater to their every whim, I just don’t see that being much of a deterrence for someone being repressed and starving to death in a desert. So, it’s one thing to very quietly, behind the scenes, inform our soldiers that waterboarding will not be used. It’s totally another to make it a campaign issue and go to foreign countries telling them that we will not do unto others what is being done to us. That if they kill thousands of our innocent citizens, behead unarmed reporters, and terrorize and kill their own people, we will offer them the courtesy of a fair trial, and under no circumstances harm them. That’s just BS. When you’re at war, those who play nice get slaughtered. Now, the additional aspect to consider is if capturing a terrorist serves no military purpose whatsoever, that we are not allowed to do what it might take to get them to reveal useful information, why even capture them in the first place? Just kill them onsite. There are no agreements against that. The Geneva Protocols do not address terrorists. There is no government that will negotiate on their behalf. In fact, the problem we have here is in most cases the country where we caught these people will not allow them to come back. So, rather than going to the trouble of capturing them, containing them, feeding them, pandering to their whims, and providing legal defense, while in combat, just shoot them. They serve absolutely no value whatsoever if we can’t do what it takes to get info from them, they are a threat and menace to society if left alive, and no entity on this planet cares if we kill them. They just worry themselves sick if treat them badly.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I honestly think that clear and precise language in this type of discussion is needed.
And to your broader point: I find it difficult to believe that people willing to die in battle, if not actually die in a suicide attack, are going to be deterred by the potentiality that they will be abused once captured.
And you are creating a false dichotomy between torturing them and “pandering to their whims.”
May 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am
An interrogator in Iraq estimated that half the people he dealt with were fighting us because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. A separate FBI interrogator said he was getting useful intelligence from KSM before the CIA started harsh techniques, and not so much afterwards. So no, having them believe we’ll torture them isn’t a deterrent, it’s exacerbating the problem, and yes, treating them humanely is actually effective, whereas information gleaned by torture is incredibly unreliable. Case in point: the guy they tortured until he fabricated a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They believed he had such information but there were no actual ties, so they tortured him until he made up what they wanted to hear so they’d stop.
This is a political war as much as it is a military one. We want the average Iraqi/Arab/Muslim to side with us and not the terrorists or else we’ll never win the so-called War on Terror. A cheap canard in the past was painting this as trying to reason with the terrorists. No, we realize that’s impossible, but we do need the average Arab to not become part of the next wave of terrorists. Harsh methods make us be seen as the greater evil, since many Arabs are not normally fond of Al Qaeda either, and fuels recruitment.
Oh, and if you’re against torture but say the ends justify the means so sometimes we have to do it, then you’re not against torture.
So I’m against torture because it’s:
A) Immoral.
B) Ineffective. Anything they say under torture is incredibly suspect.
C) Counterproductive. It’s a massive recruitment tool.
Any one of those would be enough to oppose it all by itself. The fact that you have all three should make it a no-brainer.
And yes, waterboarding is torture.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I honestly think that clear and precise language in this type of discussion is needed.
I am doing exactly that. However, when debating something that one side sees as blatantly obvious, it is hard to put into words how simple the logic is when the other side keeps refusing to see it.
And to your broader point: I find it difficult to believe that people willing to die in battle, if not actually die in a suicide attack, are going to be deterred by the potentiality that they will be abused once captured.
The key is not deter them after they have been recruited and brainwashed into a suicide attack. The key is to discourage that kid from ever wanting to be put in that position.
And you are creating a false dichotomy between torturing them and “pandering to their whims.”
There is a dichotomy. Whether you see it or not is irrelevent. The fact is we are telling them that they will be fed as they see fit, they will be allowed to observe their religion, as they see fit, etc.. That may not mean much to you, living as you do, but these people are not upper-middle-class Americans worrying about which college their kid will go to or worrying themselves sick over possibly offending some politically incorrect feeling they may have. These people will, and do, cut people’s heads off if they don’t agree with them. They live on the edge of the most brutal societies known to mankind. They live for one reason only, and that is to kill people who don’t agree with them. They respect only a show of force. They don’t want to negotiate, they want to kill you. It really is that simple. Now, let’s put this on a scale. Their weight is kill or be killed, your weight is treat them humanely. Which has the heavier consequence? They know that. Now, the worst possible fate is to be captured by the pigs and compromise their jihad. That is when they’ve broken. You think they’re going to spill their guts over a nice meal while their praying? I think you recognize the absurdity of that claim. But, to them, that’s what you’re offering. They practice torture, they have no problem seperating your head from your body. They know how to inflict incredible pain. Remember those torture chamber pictures we got from Iraq? Waterboarding’s a picnic compared to that stuff. Now, we’re telling them we won’t even do that, it’s too mean. We dust them off, feed them well, and then ship them back so they can attack some more. In the meantime, we’re not going to hurt them, harm them, or do anything ugly. Feeding them and allowing them to worship are the only whims they could possibly have. Now, one logic was that being held by the US, they would be “marked” when they returned. We have seen repeatedly this is not the case.
My bottom line is if they have no value, and we can not do whatever it takes to get value from them, just shoot them and get it over with. At least they won’t be put back in the field to kill more innocent people. And of course, you’re not violating any protocols defending yourself in battle.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ok, I have to call “ridiculous” on the notion that persons who would otherwise be recruitable to become a suicide bomber/terrorist will be deterred from doing so because they think that they might be tortured if captured.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Oh, and if you’re against torture but say the ends justify the means so sometimes we have to do it, then you’re not against torture.
I think my point was obvious to those who want to see it.
As far as the interrogation went, it seems rather obvious that they got all the info they were going to get, then not so much after. How they got that info doesn’t really matter if there is no more to be gotten.
we’ll never win the so-called War on Terror.
OK, call it what you want, but people are dieing by the tens of thousands every year due to this conflict. Just because it’s not happening in your back yard doesn’t mean it’s not a war. Wanna go hang out in Somalia? Bosnia? Chechnya? The Phillipines? Algeria? Just read today’s headlines, they’re killing people all over the planet. You can assume they won’t kill us if we just ask them to play nice or ignore them and let them kill everyone else on the planet. I’m not that naive.
Look, I don’t really care if we torture them or not. Capturing them at this point just seems to be causing all kinds of problems here. Just spend about $2.00 and eliminate the problem. Like I said, no one cares then.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Ok, I have to call “ridiculous” on the notion that persons who would otherwise be recruitable to become a suicide bomber/terrorist will be deterred from doing so because they think that they might be tortured if captured.
I have to call “ridiculous” on the notion that persons are born with the instinct to blow themselves up. You don’t see kids in the US running around blowing themselves up that often. I would argue it’s a learned concept.
Besides, we’re not talking about suicide bombers here, we’re talking about people caught in combat trying to kill others and stay alive. They are for the most part mercenaries hired to do a job. That is a totally different mindset from someone who has completely given up on living. Both however, are preventable. One culture condones it, one does not. The key is to get the culture that does condone it to stop. Whether it be fear, sudden enlightenment, instant respect for others, or divine intervention, I don’t care. I think it’s going to take a lot of different factors to change the mindset of the culture that promotes this mentality. If one of those factors is a counter to what is being used to recruit them, so be it. Nothing else seems to be working.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I think my point was obvious to those who want to see it.
I stand behind my point. If we make an exception for threats and emergencies, then there’s no point in banning it at all since every war falls into that category by definition.
OK, call it what you want, but people are dieing by the tens of thousands every year due to this conflict. Just because it’s not happening in your back yard doesn’t mean it’s not a war. [...] You can assume they won’t kill us if we just ask them to play nice or ignore them and let them kill everyone else on the planet. I’m not that naive.
You missed my point and are getting hung up on terminology. It’s absolutely a war against the existing terrorists. I said “This is a political war as much as it is a military one,” meaning there is a military component. And you’re also trotting out the canard I just described about us wanting to reason with terrorists. No, we have to win over the average Iraqi/Muslim/Arab or else they’ll be a never-ending supply of new terrorists to replace the ones we kill. They don’t have to love us, just not hate us so virulently that they’re willing to join Al Qaeda.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:22 am
And I never said otherwise. You appear to be arguing that the way to stop such choices from being made is widespread knowledge that the US will torture terrorists is captured. That is an utterly ridiculous position.
“I was willing to be a suicide bomber, but then I heard that the US might torture me if I was captured on the way to blow myself up, so I decided violence wasn’t for me.”
Really?
Or, even if they aren’t suicide bombers: “I was willing to engage in direct violence and perhaps die a horrible battlefield death and/or be maimed for life in a country with no public health infrastructure, but then I learned I might be tortured if captured, so farm living in the life for me.”
If we are just talking about combat, btw, enemy soldiers will be more likely to surrender if they know they will be treated humanely when captured.
And if we are talking in general about the applied use of violence for political ends, then I hate to tell you, but out culture condones that as well.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am
One culture condones it, one does not. The key is to get the culture that does condone it to stop. Whether it be fear, sudden enlightenment, instant respect for others, or divine intervention, I don’t care. I think it’s going to take a lot of different factors to change the mindset of the culture that promotes this mentality. If one of those factors is a counter to what is being used to recruit them, so be it. Nothing else seems to be working.
That’s pretty close to my point. You think torture is adding to a sense of fear which serves as a deterrent, but I say it’s the opposite. It’s serving as a recruiting tool and is thus counterproductive.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Indeed.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:11 am
You don’t see kids in the US running around blowing themselves up that often. I would argue it’s a learned concept.
Uh… according to the NIH about 62,928 of Americans between 15-24 killed themselves last year.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Uh… according to the NIH about 62,928 of Americans between 15-24 killed themselves last year.
How many blew themselves up with the intent to kill others?
This discussion to say the least, has wondered amazingly far from the ramifications of whether Nancy Pelosi lied or not. I’m sure Nancy would be thrilled.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Actually, my point from the beginning was that whether Pelosi lied or not doesn’t validate torture as a policy tool. As such, we have been pretty much on topic.
BTW: I am guessing that because you think that torture deters terrorists in terms of recruiting that you are in favor of the release of the photos of harsh interrogations?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:47 am
BTW: I am guessing that because you think that torture deters terrorists in terms of recruiting that you are in favor of the release of the photos of harsh interrogations?
Look, I have said repeatedly, DOING torture is one thing, having them BELIEVE they might be totally another. Everyone understands the concept of bluffing. Now, this whole issue could have been resolved very quietly by Obama sending an executive order to the Department of Defense telling them not to waterboard any more. His desire would have been fulfilled, and the torture would have ceased. What I am complaining about is Obama and Pelosi making such a circus out of the entire issue. Then when it comes back to bite Pelosi, everyone starts saying it’s a distraction for those supporting torture. When I tried to point out that it’s two seperate issues, that people who dislike Pelosi are quite “triumphant” that in her zest to prosecute Republicans, she’s trapped herself, that automatically meant I supported torture and therefore must be attacked repeatedly. That is the point I was making about the discussion running wildly off course. I thought this was simply a discussion over whether or not Nancy Pelosi’s flip-flop on the issue supported by her calls for prosecution for those that did support torture in the past was fodder for those who called her out on it. Apparently I was incorrect in assuming this was a discussion about Karl Rove’s comment on Nancy Pelosi.
To answer your question, the pictures were taken by soldiers under the impression they were doing what they were instructed to do and did so under the auspices of the government. Releasing those pictures would only subject those soldiers to the vindictiveness of those who adamantly oppose torture. That is all. The entire world at this point already knows what was going on thanks to Obama releasing the memos. Releasing the pictures would serve no further purpose. Even in his zeal to inflame the American public against the previous administration, Obama recognized the damage those pictures would cause and wisely chose not to publish them. The pictures themselves would be used to recruit new jihadists, rumors and innuendo don’t inflame people quite as much.
You have never played poker have you?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:58 am
It would seem that by your own logic, proof of mistreatment would lead to less recruits for the terrorists, not more.
And the problem is that this isn’t a game, it’s real life.
And BTW: your position on torture is unclear, as you say you don’t support it, yet you also seem to endorse it.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I don’t want to keep going at this all day so I’ll only jump in to clarify a minor point:
The entire world at this point already knows what was going on thanks to Obama releasing the memos. [...] Even in his zeal to inflame the American public against the previous administration [...]
The ACLU sued to have those memos released under the FOIA, and the administration was required to comply. They did not cherry pick memos to voluntarily release for political purposes. Likewise, the administration is opposing release of the photos, but given the number of rulings against them so far, they will likely fail and the photos will be released for the same reason. I’m not getting into whether this is a good thing or not.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
And the problem is that this isn’t a game, it’s real life.
Real life is no different than a good game of poker. You don’t get ahead in this world by being the most humane person on the planet and showing your cards to everyone, you get ahead by convincing others to do what you need done without showing your cards.
It would seem that by your own logic, proof of mistreatment would lead to less recruits for the terrorists, not more.
That’s why I asked the poker question. Why does anyone ever fold in a game of poker? Is it because they know the other guy has four aces? Or, is it because they think the other guy has a better hand? Logic would dictate playing it out, you’ll win some and lose some. It’s the perception a person has of whether their hand is better than the other guy’s or not, not the reality. Having possible terrosists think they’ll suffer unimaginably is enough, showing it to the world accomplishes nothing. The human mind is much more creative than any photograph.
And BTW: your position on torture is unclear, as you say you don’t support it, yet you also seem to endorse it.
That’s because I am a pragmatist. I don’t like it, but I know the bad guys do. Just because I know they’ll cut my head off doesn’t mean I like beheadings. I also know you don’t get any information at all if you play nice with terrorists. The less info we get, the more risk we put our soldiers in. So, the trade-off is more than worth it. Obama made sure to release statements from people who claim otherwise. To date, he has not allowed the release of the memos that support harsh tactics. So, quoting from the state-approved sources just doesn’t impress me. If it were the opposite, I would be equally cautious. And, given that Nancy Pelosi had NO PROBLEM with it until a presidential election year, I think it is perfectly logical to question her sudden outrage and zeal to prosecute something she condoned for at least five years nad hasn’t been used for one year. When a Republican does question her, as I have noted many times here, it is a distraction from the debate over how horrible the practice we don’t use anymore was. The discussion over whether torture is acceptible is the distraction from Nancy Pelosi’s lies. The debate over waterboarding has been moot for over a year. Obama didn’t stop waterboarding, Bush did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030800304.html
So, given the fact that the story now is Nancy Pelosi lieing about what she knew five years before the ban, and now is accusing the CIA of lieing to Congress, not being allowed to be discuss her actions because it would be a distraction from debating something that hasn’t existed for over a year accomplishes absolutely nothing but taking heat off Nancy Pelosi. That’s it. Karl Rove now has nothing to do with the debate over torture. Nada. You can attack him all you want, it will not change one iota of whether or not we torture or not. Nancy Pelosi does. She dictates what laws are passed or not. She says she’s on your side, but she wasn’t for five years. The person who has nothing to do with it questions the person who was against you for five years and you attack him for distracting the discussion of why she was agin you for five years before suddenly being fer you the last two because he had the audacity to point out she obviusly was lieing to you. So, my point in all that is you seem to be so sensitive to the issue that you’ll not only believe the last thing someone tells you about it, but you’ll attack anyone that points out that they said something else before that. This is not about torture, that’s been banned for over a year. This is about Nancy Pelosi being laid bare for lieing. Karl Rove had the right to qestion her. I have the right to question her. It has nothing to do with whether or not torture is used or not. MY position on torture is a lot more complicated than this discussion is allowing. It’s as much a head game as anything else. Apparently everyone wants it to be black and white. It’s a media campaign, people here just want to blurt it all out. And, it’s a poker game, you want the other side to fold before the stakes get too high and they realize you don’t have a royal flush. We don’t have to waterboard anyone. But, the bluff that we did probably didn’t hurt anything. Now I’m sure they’ll just dope the hell out of them and keep them strung out on meth until they start rambling incoherently. Even if they don’t, if some terrorist wannabe thinks they do and decides a life of writing viruses would involve less pain, it’s worked. Get it now?
If it were up to me, everyone would just love each other and make sure every single person on the planet was taken care of in a humane and respectful manner. But, I’m not showing my cards until they do.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
While I understand the notion of not tipping one’s hand, real life is decidedly far more complicated than a game of poker, which has a far more predictable and regularized set of outcomes than does reality. Further, the stakes in real life are a tad higher than even championship level Texas Hold’em.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
The ACLU sued to have those memos released under the FOIA, and the administration was required to comply. They did not cherry pick memos to voluntarily release for political purposes.
The ACLU did have a political agenda. They were proving the civil rights violations. So, what has been released has had one single objective and that is not national security. Those supporting the harsh tactics argument have not been allowed to have their supporting evidence released, and may never. So, quoting those sources is not a balanced presentation of evidence to me.
While I understand the notion of not tipping one’s hand, real life is decidedly far more complicated than a game of poker, which has a far more predictable and regularized set of outcomes than does reality. Further, the stakes in real life are a tad higher than even championship level Texas Hold’em.
That is obvious. However, how you play the game of life is a lot simpler than most people make it. If someone thinks you’ve got the better hand, you’re much more likely to get what is in the pot. Whether that pot is buying a car, negotiating a salary, getting in some babe’s pants, or discouraging someone from trying to kill you, it’s all in the cards. If you’re good at what an employer wants, that’s your ace. If it’s a car you want, offer cash, that’s an ace. Scoring chicks is a little more complicated, you have to figure what the ace is. Tequila is usually a sure-fire ace. If your gun is bigger than the other guy’s, it helps a lot in not getting shot at. If you don’t have a gun, just hope he thinks you do. So, even though there are tangible differences, the art of the deal, the bluff, usually is a lot more effective than just throwing what you got out there. A lot of the world thought Nukular George was a crazy shoot-em up cowboy. They know Obama’s not. The reality is when push comes to shove, I think either president would react similarly. The difference is George gave you that impression that he had a couple of aces whether he did or not. Obama so far is giving the impression he hasn’t got a face card at all and could care less. Will that tempt an aggressor? Dunno. We may find out pretty quick in Pakistan.
I’m just curious here. If the Taliban rebels in Pakistan did over-run the nuclear facilities and threaten other countries, what would be the limit in obtaining information from captured rebels?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The ACLU did have a political agenda. They were proving the civil rights violations.
The “they” in what I wrote referred to the Obama administration, who you said released them in “zeal to inflame the American public against the previous administration.” They did not.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
The “they” in what I wrote referred to the Obama administration, who you said released them in “zeal to inflame the American public against the previous administration.” They did not.
They honored the ACLU’s request for specific documents detailing abuses, specifically waterboarding. They denied Dick Cheney’s request for specific documents detailing results.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_request_denied.asp
That certainly looks like a zeal to inflame the American public against the previous administration to me considering the fact that waterboarding had not been used for over a year. What would you call it?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
[...] What boggles me is that right on cue, the liberal masses jump right in line and provide her a smokescreen: Second, we all do understand that even if Pelosi did know and even if she lied with impunity, that d… [...]
May 15th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
They were legally compelled to honor the ACLU request after a court battle, just like they will most likely be legally compelled to release the additional photos regardless of their opposition. It is not the same thing.
Second, I find it amusing that you throw Dr. Taylor in with the “liberal masses.” Third, go back and read my first post where I make it quite clear I’m willing to throw Pelosi to the wolves if that’s what she deserves.
I think further debate is futile at this point.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
And I think the Democrats are socialists, so I will now call them Socialists. And I think that the various enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were effective in getting information that was not obtainable other ways, so I will call anyone who disagrees with me as “anti-effective interrogations.” And, …
Let’s be clear: the reason I mention really nasty torture methods is that I oppose torture. I believe torture is generally effective (we’ve heard recently that during the Dark Ages there was the concept of torture warrants, which were approved by a deliberative court once a year or so; why would those courts bother to hear requests for torture warrants if torture was ineffective?), but it’s outlawed for being inhumane. The question, in my mind, is whether a particular technique is inhumane enough to qualify as torture.
Yes.
Now let’s try another hypothetical. The military has captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Mohammed believes that he will only receive his eternal salvation if he resists interrogation to the utmost of his ability, but he is free to spill the beans once he crosses that threshold (this is basically the situation he explained to the CIA after he started talking). The techniques in the Army Field Manual of Interrogation do not test him to the utmost of his ability, so he’s handed over to the CIA. As the lead interrogator, you remember going through anti-interrogation training that involved days-long sleep deprivation, hours-long stress positions, some physical roughness, and even waterboarding. You know these techniques are designed to push trainees to the utmost of their ability to resist without actually causing long term harm or being so inhumane to cause trouble with the trainees’s families. What do you do?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Clearly one can dispute the meaning of words.
Here’s a hypothetical: what if we could get the information with out torture?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What I don’t get, btw, is that both Max and Moonage like to point out how they are opposed to torture. Why, when the underlying arguments you both make are about how important it is to affect the behavior of recruits, prisoners, etc. Why bother with being “anti-torture”? Why not just go with what works and be done with it?
May 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Interesting, because that is precisely how I see it. Hitting with a sledge hammer: bad. Slapping across the face: OK. Putting in a closet for two hours: not torture, etc.
Because there is some fundamental problem with people understanding being willing to go outside the Army Field Manual is not necessarily the same thing as a willingness to torture.
What definition of “interrogation” does not affect the behavior of the one being interrogated? Seriously?
Because torture is inhumane. If you start with “we will not torture, but we will do things that aren’t torture to save people’s lives” then it seems elementary to “go with what works” so long as that is not actual torture. I cannot see an academically honest way to dispute that.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
[...] on this issue does not bring justification to the usage of harsh interrogation techniques, as I noted the other day. What it does, however, is bring into question Pelosi’s leadership as well as cast general [...]