War Crimes and the Bush administration

They did not "torture" EVERY suspect - they only used those techniques on those who our intelligence indicated were high-ranking operatives. Waterboarding was broken out on THREE detainees: Abu Zubaydah, a planner and logistics guy (who made the travel arrangements), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the mastermind of the attack on USS Cole.

As for the "false dichotomy" - I think you are trying to have it both ways, and not just on the enhanced interrogation techniques (again, they gathered significant intelligence that has been credited for stopping 9/11-style attacks against the Library Tower, Heathrow, and Canary Wharf).

The surveillance program is one of those cases. If they do the surveillance, they can get intelligence that can help thwart attacks, but you complain about how you're no longer free from surveillance. If they don't, and an attack happens, then some will complain about the fact that they didn't stop it.

And you can put that onto any scenario or technique. If the CIA is aggressive, your side of the aisle jumps on their mistakes and rips them a new one. If they go passive, they get ripped for not stopping the attack. The only time I saw the left ever stick up for the CIA was when Valerie Plame seemed like an avenue to get Bush and Cheney!

 

You misunderstand me. How can I believe you care about this country when you side with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over the CIA and DOD?

 

And what would lead you to such a... bold conclusion? Just because you don't support torture doesn't mean you support Khalid Sheikh.

 

Three operatives? Is that all? Or were those only what became public? How can you be sure there weren't other occasions if they already tried to cover it up before?

You really don't know how terrorism works do you? Terrorist groups isolate themselves into cells in order to seal themselves from one another. If one gets caught or captured, it only compromises that one cell and nothing more. It's not like you can really find one person who could bring down the entire organization as you suggest.

If I'm wrong, could you please provide something to verify your claims about what they got which prevented such attacks?

It was their right to act or not. And Bush and Cheney did compromise her mission and the safety of the US to do it.

 

How can I believe you care about this country when you side with Dick Cheney and others (who encourage terrorist action through their confident assertions that changes to Bush-era policy WILL lead to successful attacks) over the PotUS?

EDIT: Is it perhaps POSSIBLE that we BOTH care for this country, but have very different opinions of what is in this country's best interests?

 

I don't think I've been hypocritical about this issue. I've said all along, since September 12, 2001, that I don't think making the U.S.A. 99.99% impregnable to terrorist attack is a worthy or courageous goal. I've never blamed Bush for failing to prevent 9/11. Instead, I've bemoaned the cowardly nation of cringing fearmongers we became as a result of the attacks. People who are so desperately afraid that a terrorist will jump out at them behind their garage at night that they've forgotten what it truly means to be American.

 

When I post, I think out loud a lot. If you weren't so quick to try and paint me as a caricature of a right winger and actually read my posts, you would see I have changed my positions many times over the years here. I don't respond well to petty name calling and "gotcha" posts. But if you make a good argument, especially on something like this you will be surprised that I just might agree with you.

Yes Eps you are right in a lot of ways -- you have been subject to name calling and in some respects to "gotcha" posts. Although I think you should complain much more about the former rather than the latter because I think there's a place for those if the person posting is reasonable enough and not just using it as an excuse to tear someone down without making a valid point.

You have also changed position a few times over the years. You've changed in both directions. For the record I think that doesn't necessarily make you a centrist or representative of the media (although it may make you representative of the mean), but it does make you compartively a moderate of the right.

I do still condsider you on the right side of things... but you're closer to say, Tucker Carlson than Ann Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly than Sean Hannity (since I consider Hannity much worse than O'Reilly).

Jabba might think it's bad form to comment on the character of a poster (which I don't necessarily disagree with) -- but I figured I'd respond to the above.

 

Smuggler, no one is choosing a side. What's being said is that there's a line that the US should not cross. No one gives a plugged nickel about a terrorist who's locked up. The problem is when the whole, 'treat your enemies better than they'd treat you,' is broken. Then it's a problem because you lose international support and the support of people who would otherwise agree with you. This whole, "You side with terrorists," is BS and you know it. Or maybe you don't. I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is how the US is perceived, because we're already in a precarious position as 'world leader'. Countries could dump whatever we give them just to burn us.

Whatever happened to, "I wouldn't ask you to do anything I wouldn't do myself?"

 

Oh I'm definately more right leaning than left leaning, but lately I haven't got too involved in economic discussions where I would be more left leaning because there are plenty of people to make that case. I still don't think it was right to go into Iraq in the first place, but it is almost a moot point to argue about that. I mean on a lot of this I disagree with JS pretty strongly as far as what to do in the future.

But Farraday's post is very frustrating because he quoted a post from a good while ago where I wasn't laying down a hard and fast position, but just trying to imagine the exception to the rule in the one in a million chance that there was a "ticking time bomb" and we had no time and knew the person in front of us had information that would stop it. The moral evil of torture vs. the death of millions at that point clearly shows the need for one over the other. Do I think that will ever happen? No. But if it did, then the person who tortures and then goes to jail for it would be a hero.

Instead of trying to "get" me, anybody who knows me that if you are nice about it and make a good case, I'm always open to new information.

 

And that's why this issue isn't so cut and dried.

Some people seem to forget that these policies were developed because the Bush administration wanted to develop a program that didn't violate the law. In fact, the legal outline of 2003 was created because the DOD didn't have a standardized policy for dealing with non-military personnel, and the SecDef asked the Justice Department to clarify what was permitted. I think Espaldapalabras just explored this in a recent post, as the policies were literally created on the fly. No one set out to develop a program that directly tortured anyone, and it's a mischaracterization to suggest otherwise.

Now, what is legal doesn't automatically reflect what is moral, but even then, there's no one size all blanket that covers everything.

For example, I previously mentioned the 1998 cruise missile strike on the aspirin factory in the Sudan as a different illustration of a response to terrorism.

EXAMPLE HERE

The important things here are the date- 1998, because the act represents transitional policy for the (then)upcoming administration. And the reason given- "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists..." "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism." Now, casualty estimates of that strike vary between a couple of hundred, up to 5,000 people killed. The questions here are:

1)was that strike a rational response to terrorism?
2)If yes, did the strike uphold a moral conviction?
3)Regardless of 1 or 2, was the strike a public demonstrate that could turn opinion against the US?

Certainly, the government of Sudan officially denied that the factory was anything but an innocent depository for medicine. And no matter how one answers any of the 3 questions, the strikes themselves all represented direct acts of war against Sudan at the least, and illegal uses of force at the worst.

Now suppose, in a year 2000 display of partisanship and desire to get payback for the failed Lewisnky scandal, Congressional republicans declared that the cruise missile strikes were illegal acts of force after the fact, and they vowed to get to the bottom of any and all personnel for ordering the strikes, down to the lowest military personnel who actually loaded the missiles and fired them off?

Would the missile strikes themselves suddenly take on a different view? Would they become any more immoral, or any more illegal than they were when they were carried out?

 

Exactly my feelings as well. It is really all about what it is America wants to stand for. Smuggler, if it is just about winning at all costs, then that is fine, you should adopt a policy of torture. Just please don't continue to pretend that the Unites States actually stands for anything grander than what Saddam Hussein stood for, or what Taliban stand for, or Al Queada or any other of your 'terrorist' enemies. Admit that you fight on an equal (im)moral footing but with superior numbers and technology. You will eventually win I'm sure.

Personally I'd rather stand for something grander than a what a peasant thug like Saddam Hussein ever stood for. But that's just me. Go forth, win!

 

Oh since you posted and defended that earlier point of view, obviously everyone should know you've changed your mind. Let me remind you what you said "the reaction against torture has outweighed the benefits". This is not a statement about the wrongness of torture, it's a complaint that people over reacted to the use of torture. It implies that if people hadn't reacted negatively it would be okay.

I'm not reading into your words anything that isn't there. If you mean something different perhaps you should put more care into writing your thoughts and less into complaining about how people read them. You've gone on to say the 'leftist' will suffer political consequences for their inability to protect America. You've said that you don't think the CIA intentionally wanted to torture and that water boarding may not be torture because we have to argue about it. You've said that 'people like you' (leftists I presume) want to 'destroy the intelligence capabilities of this country'

You've reduced the intentional torture of detainees to "bad policy" and white washed the whole thing as a simple disagreement over the legal definitions of torture. As if the legal opinions were divorced from the political directives. As if torture wasn't already taking place prior to the legal misdefinitions.

Your opinion has been "Okay we won't torture if you're going to make such a big fuss about it, but anything that happens now is your fault because you're interfering with the CIA."

I'm sorry but I don't see why we should give a carte blanche to the CIA and then presume they won't break the law. I don't see why we should presume that if they break the law it's in defense of the country and thus okay. And I certainly don't see how you could begin to imagine that when they do break the law they'll still be held accountable when you refuse to hold anyone to account because that's what a carte blanche does.

We can torture if/when needed, which is up to the CIA, which shouldn't be held accountable.

But Espy doesn't 'believe in' torture.

Get you? Espy if you can't say what you mean instead of typing out load and never editing it for coherence no one has to try and get you, you just wander into contradiction with every sentence.

 

We can torture if/when needed, which is up to the CIA, which shouldn't be held accountable.

I can't debate with you. All you do is try and put words in my mouth which I never actually said and assume I argue in bad faith. You and JS deserve each other.

Your post is so full of misconceptions of what I actually was trying to convey I don't know where to start, but you are just pissing me off so I'm going to walk away. Count that as another "win" in your "who did I beat on the Intranets" list, but a massive FAIL for convincing anyone of anything.

 

Really?

"Note the "IF and WHEN" it is needed."

"But what was done was done in a grey area. The CIA was given responsibility for a task it had never done before and made mistakes as they went along. They are hard working men and women who are doing their best to protect this country."

"You made a value judgement that justice is much more important for the worst terror suspects (against crimes that have already been examined by career people at DOJ and several other reviews) was more important than security. I understand that as an ideological argument, but as a practical one it seems to me like political suicide unless those who would attack us are so impressed by our fidelity to our principles that they lay down their arms."

You use words you don't understand, to make arguments you don't mean, and then complain when someone calls you on it.

Stop complaining about ti and learn to present your arguments instead of complaining no one is convincing you because they don't understand your abominably presented poorly worded, barely coherent arguments.

You're on and on about me not convincing you, how about you convince me you have an actual thought out position.

Tell me which part of this statement is factually wrong with your position.

"We can torture if/when needed, which is up to the CIA, which shouldn't be held accountable."

You've repeatedly argued the first (while saying you don't like torture). I'll admit maybe you think it should be up to the President, but that doesn't change much. As for the last you've repeatedly argued holding the CIA accountable is tantamount to hamstringing our national intelligence capabilities and as a result when we're attacked again, the blame will be the leftist/liberals.

You may not like it but I'm not sure where I've misrepresented you. I'll tell you what, I'm pretty sure most of us here are at least late High School or have had some college, therefore we should all have a passing familiarity with the concept of a thesis statement. Whats your thesis statement for your position here? You present that and we'll go through your posts weeding out the poorly constructed supports.

 

But see LOH, that's where we have a wide basis for discussion..

This goes back to the previous discussion we had-or maybe it was even the one prior to that-who can tell these days...

But no one in the US set out to adopt a policy of torture. These were all techniques that were looked at because they fell within a legal framework that was being created. If you remember the previous discussion when we examined waterboarding, the US adopted it as a technique specifically because the British argued at the international level that it didn't constitute torture, and at one time, it wasn't considered to be so. This wasn't a case of the US knowing that something was illegal and doing it anyway in order to damn the terrorists, but rather, it was an attempt to find policy among an area that wasn't adequately defined at many levels.

In many ways, this all represents the "ex post facto law" fallacy, because something can't be held to be retroactively subject to a change in law or perception.

And I'm not sure how much the US should be held to a different standard in the world, while at the same being criticized for not joining more readily in it. Even if everything the US did ends being considered to be torture, it's nothing that exists as a moral superiority anywhere else. After the Bali bombings, Australian officials were sued for engaging in torture... We previously examined French officials for the same thing...And so on.. Just because "others do it," doesn't make it correct, but I'm not sure it's fair to judge the US alone by a standard that probably doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

 

Mr 44 your entire argument relies on false international moral equivilency and completely ignores domestic law. As such your argument is predicated on the Nixonian notion that if the President does it it isn't against the law.

A legal opinion stating certain actions are legal is no more lawful than, to borrow from your military heritage, an illegal order. It is not ex post facto since ex post facto requires an actual change of laws, not simply a ruling that a lawyers opinion is wrong. Your argument would be comparable to trying to get out of tax fraud because your lawyer said it was okay.

 

Is that what you have to do to feel like a man?

No I'm not presenting a thesis. I am having an open discussion, sometimes with myself. If I felt like preparing research papers, I wouldn't be posting them here. I'm sorry I have a conversational tone. Your insults only betray the pettiness of how much you dislike others.

 

A thesis statement is not much of a requirement. Your arguments have been confused and contradictory, if you feel that is what a "conversation" is then maybe you need to reconsider. This isn't about arguing in good faith or bad faith or whatever your preferred phrase is, it's about maintaining coherence.

But yes, I suppose trying to tease out of you some semblance of meaning is me hating everyone and trying to feel like a man. If you just want to post your beliefs stream of thought with no understandable underlying argument you can always create a blog and turn off comments. Just don't ramble and complain when someone doesn't take you seriously and/or fails to understand your deeper meaning.

 

Just to clarify Mr44, my earlier post was specifically directed at JediSmuggler's position that torture is justified when it saves lives, ie, the whole "competing harms" doctrine which Smuggler says justifies the use of torture. In that context, the use of 'torture' is assumed and in not in question (which I understand to the subject matter of this thread, ie, did Bush willingly engage in torture or did he understand the techniques to be legallly permissible?)

In terms of how much the US should be held to a different standard in the world, I guess that was the thrust of my earlier question: What does America wish to stand for? What are your core values which differentiate you from other nations in the world? Here is where the whole patriotism debate lies: some argue that there is a line you cannot cross, even to save lives or avoid another terrorist attack. That is a line which is drawn according to principle. That to me is patriotism, standing up for your beliefs and principles. Others argue that it is really a matter of "us versus them", and true patriotism dictates that 'we' come out on top regardless of the methods used. To protect 'them' under auspices of 'principle' is unpatriotic if such a position leads to loss of innocent lives.

I guess I just want somebody to be able to admit that if the US takes an "us versus them at all costs" approach, that is fine, but it means that there is really no difference in terms of core values and principles between the US and its 'terrorist' enemies. It becomes not a war on ideas and principles, but a war based upon purely on military superiority. This is directed more at Smuggler's comments, rather than what Bush did or did not do.

 

And for everyone else this is my basic position: Do the least bad you can while doing whatever you can to protect yourself and your interests. Not all torture is equal, just as not all bombing is equal. Intent matters. There may be cases where torture may be justified. I don't know what those are, but I imagine they are so rare we shouldn't bother making future laws have provisions for them. What is done is done, and we need to focus on preventing future attacks and preventing future policies. Lots of bad things have been done in the past that were morally evil and illegal, and liberals don't have any problems ignoring them when it fitted their purpose. The demands of justice on the Bush administration are in no way 100% clear, and are unlikely to be successful in a court of law. The only effect would be to poison our political culture by removing incentives for peaceful transisions of power, which I consider far more important than rights of a few of the worst terrorists in the world. It isn't that they have no rights, and in the future we need to be better, but yes I am willing to let those demands for justice slide for a greater good. The evidence of torture has been reviewed and found wanting by several groups, so the current investigation will not provide the justice desired, but will hamper intelligence efforts that are vital to prevention of inevitable future terrorist attacks.

I do believe torture a moral wrong, but a nation cannot last if it does not take into account practical self interest.

 

From what I understand, Bush actually was able to change the law in order to allow torture. So technically he can't be held accountable. But considering that he changed policies and military regulations for that purpose, does that mean someone who can change the law is not above it?

I totally agree that our values should be held more dear than our lives. We need something greater than ourselves in order to believe in it, and if the terrorists are able to make us abandon that... then they have won. Congratulations.

Very fine statement. I would go so far as to say that the Bush administration violated this to an extreme level because the harm brought about and the benefits gained leave me highly skeptical. I have doubts as to whether the torture and countermeasures for terrorism were really in our best interests. They did cause a lot of tension between the US and other nations.

That goes to a point I tried to make: the line must be drawn on this matter. The torture aspect is done, but not the legal aspects. If we are to take a lesson from this and move on, we can't ignore this. If we do then we are essentially saying we're never going to act to prevent future occurrences. The war in Vietnam should have been a lesson, but what did we get? Another war EXACTLY like it that should have been avoided. The Nixon pardon was the worst way to settle that crime, because it gave any future president grounds to violate the law and be able to get away with it. Nixon should have been tried for his crime, exactly as Bush must.

I want Bush imprisoned for his role in Iraq. I admit I'm biassed towards charging him with anything and everything you can.

What greater good is that? The president is above the law? That's exactly what this signifies.

How will it hamper intelligence?

[

 

Well, I can't honestly say I'm disgusted by many views here (including some of my own), but you managed to do it. Congrats.

EDIT: I should expand on this. See, you know torture is wrong, but you're kind of wishy-washy okay with it. It's really no different than someone who knows killing is wrong, but proceeds to do so anyway. Or to sweeten the pot, let's say they're a corporate figurehead and they kill because of their own self-interest. Even though they know it's wrong. It's still rather scummy.

 

For the love of crumbcake, Darth Yuthura, could we not use imaginary groups of magic-wielding beings as examples? There's plenty of absolutism-minded groups of people who actually exist or existed on Earth without having to bring up THE SITH.

 

Better, but lets examine why you're wrong.

Lets start backwards with your final summary statement, it is too broad for your own opinion. Practical self interest doesn't clarify your objection to the blanket condemnation of torture. Practical self interest is far too broad, where as your objection relies on rare conditions. Practical self interest is common, rare conditions are, as it says on the label, rare.

If you include a summary statement like that in that fails to express your opinion accurately someone is going to take your word for your summery of your beliefs and castigate you for it.

Lets move onto the slightly more in depth portion.

Taking it one assertion at a time. First your overall goal of doing the least bad while protecting your interests. I like the least bad phrasing and I've used it before in my appraisal of the Honduran situation. Unfortunately I think you're misapplying it here. The key problem is identifying two key concepts in the sentence, the obvious 'least bad' and the less obvious 'interests'. As a nation and government our interests are not simply geopolitical but the preservation of the ideals and central tenants enshrined by our founding documents and central laws. The least bad course of action must preserve those, not simply American lives or international prerogatives.

Moving on, the argument of the graduation of torture. I'd like you to clarify this because I'd like to know if you're talking about a graduation like the use of Force a police officer might have or in the degrees of murder. Murder is graduated, but from manslaughter on up it's still against the law. Police Force however is graduated on acceptable response. Deadly force is okay in some circumstances, but murder in others. Your claim it should be illegal suggests the first but from your tone I believe you're arguing the second. The inclusion of intent is also confusing, since intent rarely prevents something from being illegal, although it can and does effect the punishment. You have Mens Rea as a principle, but it would be insanely hard, impossible even, to prove they didn't intend to commit torture. Perhaps by intent however you meant purpose. This would be an affirmative defense or the sort envisioned by the competing harms principles.

The problem with competing harm as an affirmative defense is it requires one thing that would be difficult to prove and a second that would be near impossible. First it requires immediate physical danger. Your so called ticking bomb scenario might qualify, but there is no relevance here because the torture engaged in is not in any sort of immediate condition. Even if you could show future attacks were prevented those attacks weren't immediate danger and more importantly without prior knowledge of their existence you have no grounds to torture to stop them. Competing harm does nto allow for torture fishing expidition