Dick Cheney forgot his Voegelin

"To stand behind Cheney is to sanction the view that power elites have the right to break the law for the sake of defending the political and social order."

I wonder if those on the left who think the "Mary Jo would think that her death was worth it because of all the great things Teddy accomplished" argument makes even an iota of sense are capable of having second thoughts on reading a similar argument. Doubtful.
Same with Bill Clinton, of course. Same with those on the right and their own, of course.

I'm with John E. (and the American Founders, or most of them) -- I don't trust these people, whether Democrat or Republican, and I don't think anything they do should be beyond scrutiny and potential accountability. In the case of Cheney et. al. and torture, I further don't concede that they were merely acting in good faith to keep America safe. I think we're talking about people who find the violent exercise of great power attractive in and of itself, and who believe that demonstrations of such power on their part are enactments of the good, not just instruments for achieving it. Basically, in their minds they've conflated "the good" with "America" and conflated America with themselves.

I also think the analogy to A Few Good Men and Jack Nicholson's character is a good one. Recall that what that character was defending, ultimately (in covering up some kind of hazing ritual that killed a serviceman, if I remember right?), was not American national security as such, but the personal prerogatives and immunities that he and people like him had grown used to as officers of the organization charged with protecting that security. That is, he had conflated national security with the military, the military with its officers, and the privileges of the officer corps -- which we extend to it out of respect for the job it's supposed to be doing -- with himself. That's exactly the temptation of power that I strongly suspect we're dealing with in the case of the Cheneyites. The American Founders were well aware of this dynamic and talked themselves blue in the face warning against it.

At the very least, if we're going the "security ueber alles" route, we should say so explicitly and quit pretending otherwise. It's interesting that none of the torture defenders on yesterday's Cheney thread actually went the whole nine yards and called for the repeal of the laws and the abrogation of treaties against torture. That's what the U.S. should do: It should inform the world that it reserves the right to use any means its leaders of the moment choose to in its own defense (or what they claim is its defense). What's the point of keeping on the books these measures whereby the U.S. promises not only not to torture, but to investigate and prosecute all credible allegations of torture, if they're just going to be ignored because oh, sorry, we weren't thinking of 9/11 when we signed and ratified and enacted those laws? Why be hypocrites about it? Torture already makes a mockery of civilized values; do we have to make a mockery of our own laws as well? Isn't that just hurting us? And while we're at it, we should instruct the State Department and other agencies to stop issuing these reports that criticize other government for torturing people and that define "torture" to include sleep deprivation and all the other techniques that our weasely guys chose instead to call "enhanced interrogation." Why should the U.S. government be talking down those techniques out of one side of its mouth and talking them up out of the other? That just makes it look stupid on top of looking cruel.

As I said on the other thread, I'll believe that the apologists for "enhanced interrogation" here are serious when they embrace the positions that Cheney, Bush and that crowd actually took, instead of averting their eyes and embracing different and more moderate doctrines that they're making up in their own heads. I'll also believe they're serious when they call for the open repeal of any laws or treaties that might get in the way of the CIA's doing whatever the heck it wants, and/or whatever the vice-president -- uh, I mean, whatever the president -- instructs it to do. So far I've heard no such moral and intellectual honesty from our friends on the right.

"It is a puzzlement," as the King of Siam used to say.

I think the struggle that Voegelin posits is a case (one of many) of our demons shouting down our better angels.

John E raises the cardinal point here - whom do you trust to break the law in your name? The answer must be no one, leftist or rightist or even centrist, because as we all know, power corrupts. And the absolute power that someone like Cheney seeks, corrupts absolutely.

I think what Voegelin is saying is not that the ends justify the means as a principle of morality,

It says EXACTLY that. And you say you're fine with it as long as you don't have to look at it.

I'm reminded of two things:

The Sword of Damocles

and

No one should watch sausage being made.

John E and Charles Foster Kane - I will fourth you - well put!

One query - is the only way to defend our nation throuogh the use of violence and war? Are there other ways to protect us - vigiliance which results in preventing incidents, having relationships with other nations that are respectful? Or how about - giving up the belief we should be the world's policemen, giving up the "Empire"? How about being neutral? It works for other countries.

I'd echo John E and Charles Foster Kane as well.

However, I think the most important perspective is Duncan in London's. Before we focus on the philosophical dimension, let's look at the practical reality. The evidence that exists indicates that after 9/11 Cheney and company just flat out panicked and did a lot of stuff more to feel like they were doing something than for any other reason. I don not believe that Dick Cheney has always wanted the U.S. to torture people in the name of national security. He wanted people to be tortured after 9/11 because the thought MADE HIM FEEL GOOD. That's what must be remembered.

Mike

Rod,perhaps it's time for all of us to reacquaint ourselves with Reinhold Niebuhr's "Moral Man and Immoral Society." I'm struck by how prescient he would appear in relation to the issue you have posed here, even though technically he was looking backwards over his shoulder.

I think that upholding the rule of law is a matter of self-interest as John E suggests. Mark Shea, who has been covering this topic thoroughly on his blog, posted this a few months ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg

Rod,
I have to agree with you mostly. But I think you might be missing one aspect of the issue. Of necessity, if torture is going to be secret from the population, it's got to be rare. You can trust maybe up to five people to keep a secret. When you are torturing hundreds of people between Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, etc., you of necessity have hundreds of people who know about it; guards, other prisoners, the torturers themselves, those who transport, etc. If the administration believes it's necessary to keep torture absolutely secret, it will only let a few people know. By definition then only a handful will be tortured. In essence the very need to keep something from the public acts as a check on the scale on which it can be implemented. And yeah, I think I would be okay with a Bush administration that had tortured three people in 8 years. Well, maybe not okay, but not as upset. After all, if they knew they could only torture the most high value people, they probably would have made sure the people they tortured actually were terrorists and actually had info.

Do we all need Dick Cheney on that wall, like Col. Jessep? Though we can't stand to admit it, are we secretly happy that there was for a while men at the pinnacle of power who would stop at nothing -- and who felt unbound by any law -- to protect this country?

Cheney never protected us.

9/11 happened on that team's watch, and so did the anthrax killings (still unsolved) and Richard Reid successfully getting his shoe-bomb onto an airplane--only his own butterfingered clumsiness saved the day. He also masterminded the Iraq War, which killed more Americans than 9/11, jeopardized all of us by creating more terrorists and breaking our traditional alliances, and threw $3 trillion out of our economy and into a worthless desert where of course it vanished. We owe him nothing, except a speedy trial before his peers--and make no mistake, it is that very process that he is trying to poison with his constant media tour of arrogant self-pity.

Rev. Mike - yes I was thinking of Niebuhr re: another post Rod put up yesterday. Very relevant.

We do discriminate so to speak in immigration in that we restrict immigration from some parts of the world but allow it in greater numbers from other places. Hence the number of illegal Irish immigrants in the US - immigration from northern Europe is restricted.

So it is possible to reduce immigration in general and specifically reverse our current immigration priorities re: quotas for specific parts of the world.

There is another piece of the immigration discussion - when we allow people to leave some countries - we relieve the pressure for those countries to change.

I sleep well knowing the Col. Jessup's of the US military, CIA, et al, are doing whatever they can to stay one step ahead of those who would visit terroristic acts on us at will. To tread an already well-worn path, I don't consider waterboarding torture, nor sleep deprivation, nor threats to kill KSM's family if he doesn't talk. Like pornography, one knows torture when one sees it. It's not a black/white divide. Some see it in waterboarding, some (including me) do not. If our enemies respected any law other than the barbarity of sha'ria, then maybe I'd agree with Rod on this. But at times it takes barbarity (or pseudo-barbarity such as waterboarding) to defeat the real item.

I don't consider waterboarding torture

Funny how it used to be the liberals who were accused of moral relativism. Who cares what you "consider"? The world didn't begin the day you were born. Waterboarding was universally known as torture for about a thousand years until Cheney started lying about it. If Dick Cheney said elephants weren't mammals anymore, would you believe that too?

TTT said:

"Waterboarding was universally known as torture for about a thousand years until Cheney started lying about it."

From Wiki:

"After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the U.S. Army used waterboarding which was called the "water cure" at the time."

Gee RSG.....I'm sorry if not everyone agrees with you on this issue. Maybe Rod needs to do a post where he states that only people that agree with him are allowed to post comments.

As far as your ABC points, those are almost too silly to comment on since they are, also, simply based on someone's opinion. Your facts are not my facts, your morality is not my morality, and your reality is not my reality. Get over yourself.

Re: Like pornography, one knows torture when one sees it.

Yup. And I 'know', as do most of us, that hanging an innocent taxi driver from the ceiling and beating him till his legs were "pulpified' and he died of his injuries, on the mere SUSPICION (ultimately incorrect) that he was a terrorist, is torture.

"Dilawar, who died on December 10, 2002, was a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and farmer who weighed 122 pounds and was described by his interpreters as neither violent nor aggressive.
"When beaten, he repeatedly cried "Allah!" The outcry appears to have amused U.S. military personnel, as the act of striking him in order to provoke a scream of "Allah!" eventually "became a kind of running joke," according to one of the MP's. "People kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,'" he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."
"The Times reported that:
"On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
"A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.
"It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.[4]

"The various accounts of torture [2]have been detailed as follows:

* A black hood pulled over his head limiting his ability to breathe
* Knee strikes to the abdomen
* Over 100 peroneal (a nerve behind the kneecap) strikes
* Shoved against a wall
* Pulled by his beard
* His bare feet stepped on
* Kicks to the groin
* Chained to the ceiling for extended hours, depriving him ofsleep
* Slammed his chest into a table front
"The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct.[3] A death certificate for Dilawar, aged 22, from Yakubi in eastern Afghanistan, and signed by Major Elizabeth Rouse, pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC, states that the cause of death was "blunt-force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease".[4]
"It was found that at the time of Dilawar's death, the injured muscles in his legs had become "pulpified."

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

RSG,

Virtually everything you wrote in your last paragraph is wrong, for one easy example see the quote by General Michael Hayden that I provided.

Good day to you also!

"The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work. The president's speech, President Bush in September of '06, outlined how one detainee led to another, led to another, with the use of these techniques."

Do you also believe everything Obama says? Neither do I. We just do not know if it worked or not. There are conflicting accounts given by people who have credibility. The only way to be sort of sure, would be to have a group with integrity and real clout have full access to the people involved and the evidence. I would prefer a group lead by retired military. I would prefer Zinni, having met him years ago. Very smart and tough, but there are lots of good people.

Once we know if it works, we can then debate whether or not we want to make it part of our standard information gathering technique. If we conclude that the information gained is worth the negative fallout we can adopt it as part of our intel gathering apparatus. We should apply it more broadly. We should withdraw from the torture treaties and the Geneva Conventions. (Most of the world probably already views us as having foregone the Conventions anyway.) At least we will have decided this as a nation rather than a few people who knew little about international law and less about interrogations (remember that the CIA had done little human intel for quite a while.)

If we do decide to opt for torture, we should at least attempt to do it better than we have. The two psychologists who were the experts brought in by the administration had never conducted an interrogation prior to being put in charge. Too many died during interrogations.

Steve

Per usual Steve, excellent points.

Let's review a few things for people whose knowledge of history seems to go back to breakfast:

Shortly after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army court-martialed the soldier who perpetrated the “water cure” on a suspected Philippine insurgent during the U.S. presence there.

The U.S. prosecuted and convicted several Japanese soldiers after World War II for waterboarding prisoners of war.

The SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape) manual that the U.S. Army used for training purposes was designed to help U.S. soldiers to survive torture perpetrated by rogue governments like China and North Korea that used waterboarding, among other tortures. The SERE manual had never previously been used as a “How To” manual for torturing prisoners in our custody, until Bush-Cheney.

A person can drown during waterboarding which is why the CIA had physicians present. (These physicians were turning their back on the Hippocratic Oath.)

Waterboarding is torture. We historically recognized it as such and formally condemned it.

That’s why these techniques were aptly called “Enhanced”, because they had not previously been used. The same goes for shackling people’s wrists to the ceiling, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, stress positions, stuffing people into small boxes etc. Many of these techniques were used by the Soviet KGB, the East German Stazi, the Khmer Rouge and other regimes I don't think we want to emulate.

I don’t understand how anyone can still deny that these things constitute torture. The fact that worse forms of torture exist does not mean that these things are not torture. I would certainly agree that it would be preferable to be tortured by the CIA than North Korea or a Mexican drug cartel. After all, the CIA only killed about 100 people using these techniques. And, to be fair, they weren’t hoping to kill them. Again, that’s why they had physicians present. So, one’s chances for survival with the CIA would be greater.

How have we gotten to the point where we even need to defend the position that we shouldn’t torture?

Quick question for you, Bob. Do you consider yourself to be pro-life?

Yes.

"How have we gotten to the point where we even need to defend the position that we shouldn’t torture?"

Again, Andy McCarthy:

"One might think the question whether waterboarding is torture should be academic. After all, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is also unlawful. Given that waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture, one would figure waterboarding must, a fortiori, qualify as CID. I believe that is certainly true the vast majority of the time. But the matter is not so cut and dried that we can responsibly say it is true all of the time. And the reason for this is that Congress, which has had countless opportunities to make simulated drowning illegal, has declined to do so."

RSG said:

"Of course you do. And I do love your answer and its complete lack of irony. You made me laugh."

Glad I can be a source of amusement for you, however, there is nothing inconsistent about my views regarding waterboarding versus abortion. You do understand the difference between "innocent" life and a terrorist, I hope?

Of course I do, Bob. But I'm not sure you yourself understand that distinction and I'm confident I'm not the only one confused by your contrary and befuddling perception. As I said before, good luck with your worldview.

To Bob Jones and our other super manly men who know what is best...

Here is really fun experiment you can try for yourself!

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717

I waterboard!
So much talk of waterboarding, so much controversy. But what is it really? How bad? I wanted to write the definitive thread on waterboarding, settle the issue. Torture, or not?

To determine the answer, I knew I had to try it. I looked at my two small children. Surely, in the interests of science?.....

But alas, my wife had objections.

Perhaps her?

Sadly, she is proficient in Ju Jitsu, and I am unlikely to waterboard her.

That leaves me.

***

Seriously, I determined to give this a try, see how bad it was: Settle the debate authoritatively. Torture, or not?

I figure I would be a good test subject. I am incredibly fit and training for a 100 mile endurance run. The main thing about such an event is ability to tolerate pain. I am good at this. I am trained.

I also have experience with free-diving from my college days. I once held my breath for 4 minutes and two seconds. Once, while training as a lifeguard I swam laps without breathing until I passed out, so that I could know my limits.

To determine whether waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique or torture I must research it an then undergo it myself. Once I have done this, Elucidator Diogenes Tomndeb and all the rest of those liberal scum (no offense intended) must accept my now accept my now expert opinion.

So, here's what I would do. First I would google waterboarding to understand the basic concepts than I would try it on myself. First, self inflicted and then, if necessary, inflicted by my wife.(she has no problem torturing me. We've been married almost 15 years.)

These are the results of my research and experience:

The goal of waterboarding is to simulate drowning without the actual drowning or inhalation into the lungs. In order to accomplish this the subject is forced to lie on an inclined plane with his head lower than his lungs and then water is dumped onto his/her face (always keeping the lungs above the "Water line.") This simulates drowning and causes a panic.

There are some advanced techniques that make this more extreme, but that's the basic concept.

Easy enough to duplicate. I have an inclined weight bench and a watering can. No problem. I lie on this and tilt the watercan to pour water on my mouth and nose. Water goes up my nose causing me to gag and choke and splutter, but after a try or two I'm able to suppress my reflex, relax breathe in shallowly and then expel rapidly (shooting out the water) and maintain my composure. This is not too bad. with my diving experience, you would never break me this way. I can't beleive those AL Zarqawi guys were such pussies.

Back to researching the advanced techniques:

The first of these is wet rag in mouth. I try it. Ok, I can handle this too. It makes it a little bit more difficult to maintain control. I didn't realize it, but the first time around I was selectively breathing through either mouth or nose, to help maintain control. The wet rag eliminates the mouth as an option. You have to really concentrate to maintain control, breathing very shallowly on the inhale and not allowing yourself to exhale until you have a good lungfull with which to expel the water in you nose throat and sinuses. Then, you have to inhale slowly but fast enough to pull in a lungful of air before your nose throat and sinuses fill up. Difficult, but doable with some self-control. I can see where this would get very unpleasant if you lost control, but still, not terrible, not torture, per se in my book. It wasn't as bad as my vasectomy or last root canal, and not nearly so bad as the last OP I read by Liberal.

Next up is saran wrap. The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. I didn't reall see how this was an improvement on the rag technique, and so far I would categorize waterboarding as simply unpleasant rather than torture, but I've come this far so I might as well go on.

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am both enamored of my own toughness and prone to hyperbole. The former, I feel that I am justifiably proud of. The latter may be a truth in many cases, but this is the simple fact:

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

Here's what happened:

The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.

It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.

I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You know you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.

At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.

I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.

And I understood.

Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question.

Some may go easy without a rag, some may need a rag, some may need saran wrap.

Once you are there it's all over.

I didn't allow anybody else to try it on me. Inconceivable. I know I only got the barest taste of what it's about since I was in control, and not restrained and controlling the flow of water.

But there's no chance. No chance at all.

So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.
It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.

Questions? Doubts?

P.S. Yes, I really did try it.

************************************************

You are all tough guys. Try it yourselves and tell us all how it's just a colege frat prank or no more strenuous then a Japanese game show.

Be sure to have medical help nearby.

"is it possible that there is a correlation between:
a belief that there is an all-powerful God who will protect one if one obeys Him
and
a belief that the people elected to government office are Authorities and Leaders of the populace who will protect the Nation if we support them?"

But our belief in that all-powerful God is supposed to make us brave enough to choose death over dishonor, isn't it? Instead, too many christians act like frightened babies, asking our leaders to do anything, anything at all, to keep us from meeting our God for just another few days.

Am I better off to die tomorrow without having participated in torture, or to die in 30 years after having participated in it? I can only choose the latter if I really don't believe that there is a God waiting to have a word with me - or if I beleive that he's already so mad at me that nothing I do will make it worse.

RSG said:

"As I said before, good luck with your worldview."

I have ZERO doubt my worldview is more consistent than your worldview, regardless of your belittling of mine. But hey, as long as you're happy about it, good for you!

TSC,

Sorry, but your argument is faulty for one major reason. As the quotes I have provided showed, both by McCarthy and the blog commenter, we don't agree that waterboarding is torture.

Also, I do look at an innocent life (i.e. a fetus) and a guilty life (i.e. a murderer) vastly different. That's why I am against abortion, and yet support capital punishment.

Should the soldiers who shot surrendering Germans have been tried for war crimes?

That is a very good question.

Yes, they should have been.

And it is worth pointing out that the two situations are not directly comparable since the soldiers would have been hopped up with adrenaline and coming directly out of a stressful situation, whereas the interrogations took place over a long period of time without the excuse of being in the heat of the moment.

Re: And the reason for this is that Congress, which has had countless opportunities to make simulated drowning illegal, has declined to do so.

And clearly, the United States Congress is the moral authority for the world.

Re: Also, I do look at an innocent life (i.e. a fetus) and a guilty life (i.e. a murderer) vastly different. That's why I am against abortion, and yet support capital punishment.

Of course, Bob. I also oppose abortion, and support capital (and even some mild corporal) punishment.

Here's the problem: most of our detainees are _not guilty_. Or at least, they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law.

Guilty or not, the only licit reason to impose pain or death on a person at your mercy is for purposes of punishment, not for purposes of interrogation. To act otherwise is to use their suffering as an instrument of coercion, not of justice, and that's wrong.

Finally, you don't seem to get this: waterboarding is _really_ painful, from all accounts. More painful than caning, more painful than hanging, more painful than shooting. It's something that we should not be imposing on anyone, not even 'terrorists'.

OK, Bob, one more time and I'll try to use simple phrases. Let's just throw waterboarding out of it, since you refuse to consider it torture despite the facts.

What about all the other stuff--the hanging from the ceiling, the beatings...torture? Morally wrong?

What about those later found to be actually INNOCENT? (this of course flies in your ridiculous argument about the Germans in the gun shacks. They were ACTUALLY shooting at the Americans before they got to the door, but whatever) Morally wrong? Inappropriate behavior for America? Illegal behavior?

RSG said:

"OK, Bob, one more time and I'll try to use simple phrases."

Along with calling me a "sadist," RSG, how do comments like the above square with your "Christian" worldview? Obviously, you're not familiar with the Ad Hominem fallacy.

Be that as it may, I want to be sure I'm clear on one thing, regarding my supposed "ridiculous argument about the Germans." Are you saying that when soldiers put down their arms and raise their hands in surrender, that it is okay to shoot them because after all "they were ACTUALLY shooting" at us? Is that your position?

What I am saying is that the soldiers were clearly identified as the enemy. There was no question. Now, whether it was moral to shoot them when they were in the act of surrender? No. It was not. My earlier post was to show the apples-to-oranges comparison you were drawing. We are not dealing with, in many of the cases cited, the obvious surrender of an enemy, but rather the actual innocent turned over by warlords or "allies" as enemy combatants and were later shown not to be so but still subjected to TORTURE and not released.

Attacking the arguer? I probably am. Because, frankly, you and kt scare the #*()$&# out of me. Your willingness to suspend your morality, your sense of justice and your Christian duty so you can feel safe is abhorrent.

And kt, that's complete and utter bs. No one is arguing strictly whether Cheney's behavior was illegal, but also whether torture is moral. Discuss.

Excellent post by Rod, and excellent responses by John E., CFK, and others. I believe in trusting our leaders, to an extent, or voting them out of office if we don't. (But I agree completely with the point that we should never trust too much, because we can trust that human nature will produce corruption and sin.)

The abuses of power by Cheney and his ilk seem self-evident to me. While I've always believed that Bush was well-intentioned (but in over his head) I really believe that it has been many years since Cheney was well-intentioned, if he ever was. I believe he is an arrogant, self-justifying, corrupt, war-profiteering you-know-what, a chicken-hawk trying to look like the biggest, baddest *ss on the block, the kind of man who goes hunting, gets drunk, and shoots his friend in the face "accidentally".

He's not a nice man or a good man, in my opinion.

You still haven't answered my question regarding American soldiers who shot surrendering Germans. The question was not were they moral, I would agree with you that they were not. The question, however, is should they be tried for war crimes?

I’m coming back to this after spending most of yesterday working -- also Citizen Kane was on TCM, so I had to stop and watch it again, for obvious reasons -- and I haven’t traced this question all the way back upthread, so maybe I’m missing some nuance. But, what does it have to do with the people we’re talking about, whether Five Deferments Dick, aka Chickenhawk Cheney, or the spooks who did the torturing here? Which of them had just slogged their way up Omaha Beach, or the equivalent, under heavy fire? In actual practice, the U.S. military HAS court-martialed American servicemen for wrongly killing people in war zones, including Iraq, even when those servicemen had recently been under fire and when it’s been very clear that they were tremendously stressed. No doubt the stresses are taken into account during sentencing, just like any mitigating factor would be, but they don't stop the system from recognizing the crime in the first instance. But then again, the military actually does respect (because it benefits from) rules of warfare, unlike Mr. "I Had Other Priorities During Vietnam."

"The law" *exists* to defend the political and social order. It is, by definition, not in opposition to the political and social order.

Perhaps, kt, you’re not familiar with the well-established legal doctrine “under color of law.” People can act illegally under color of law, i.e. they can abuse the law, the legal system or their official position to commit outrages against the political and social order. That’s a possibility recognized in the law itself, and it means there’s nothing inconsistent about seeing Cheney (or his lawyer goons) as outlaws.

Bob Jones - "It's a simple question needing a simple answer. I kept it simple, just for you!"

Here are two simple questions for you.

1. Why shouldn't police torture every suspect when they feel it's needed in a case of kidnapping, rape or murder?

2. A terrorist has a nuclear device hidden in an American city and will detonate it within an hour unless Bob Jones and his wife or mother are gang raped on national television. Why shouldn't that be done?

Mike

Interesting that all the tags disappear....

Sorry, but your argument is faulty for one major reason.

Really? Your response demonstrates your agreement with it.

Machiavelli says that effectiveness is the measure a Prince's actions, not morality.

You succinctly write I do look at an innocent life (i.e. a fetus) and a guilty life (i.e. a murderer) vastly different. That's why I am against abortion, and yet support capital punishment.

Machiavelli's standard is a quite clear and quantifiable one.

Yours, on the other hand, is morality based upon assumption. You assume that ONLY the guilty are executed, ONLY the guilty are subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." Faced with the facts of actually innocent people being executed and subjected to harsh interrogations that managed to kill them you fall back into asserting your moral standard as if those actually innocent people either did not exist or are irrelevant.

Machiavelli would therefore regard your morality as a mere sentimentality; Based as it is upon assumption and heedless as it is of reality it is worthless in determining the value of any action and so such distain is well-earned.

Sadism By Proxy, continued.

I notice that no matter how much historical perspective, personal accounts and documentation you provide to torture apologists to show that water boarding is actually torture, useful tools like KT and bob continue to spout the sadism-isn't-really-that-bad party line. Steve has been especially patient in trying to point out the significant tactical and strategic problems that ensued from torture. My patience is gone, so I am not going to pretend to be nice.

Here is some more commentary...from a guy that actually waterboarded people in SERE training.

Refute this, Bob!

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

In fact, waterboarding is just the type of torture then Lt. Commander John McCain had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese. As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique....

...There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists
1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives. The Small Wars Council had a spirited discussion about this earlier in the year, especially when former Marine Generals Krulak and Hoar rejected all arguments for torture.

By all means, read the whole thing. There is a lot more.

Christ forgive us all, when we actually have an Orwellian discussion in this country that torture isn't really torture (as long as it's brown skin people who get drowned, beaten to death, asphyxiated, slammed into walls and left to freeze to the point of terminal hypothermia).

We beheld a monster in Al Qaeda...and some of us couldn't wait to be just like that.

TSC,

Read what I said:

"I do look at an innocent life (i.e. a fetus) and a guilty life (i.e. a murderer) vastly different."

A murderer is someone who has committed murder. It is NOT an innocent man thought to be a murderer, but a REAL murderer.

I don't think anyone can argue that a fetus is "innocent."

RSG has called me a "sadist" for my position regarding EIT and the like. I wonder, does RSG and others here call women who have had abortions "murderers?" I highly doubt it, though I think I could make a stronger case that a person who terminates her pregnancy is a more "sadistic" than someone who realizes that

1. War is hell.

2. We're in a war.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying women who have had abortions are "murderers," or "sadistic." What I am saying is that when it comes to looking at either of these two controversial issues in a "moral" sense, I believe I am on more moral ground. Yet, I think "pro-choice" people are recorded more respect around here than people who have argued my position vis a vis EIT's.

Again, to be clear, what I am saying is this issue is not as "black and white" as many make it out to be.

For example, recently I watched The Hurt Locker, the story of an American bomb squad in Iraq. In one scene, a soldier has his sights locked on to someone who he THINKS is going to detonate a bomb. Since he doesn't know for sure, he does nothing. The result? A soldier is blown to bits due to the inaction of the soldier. This, I believe, is more likely the scenario that takes place far more than it's opposite, such as the killing of surrendering German soldiers in my example.

So, as far as the recent "political" moves to investigate American "war crimes," you have to ask yourself, who is driving this issue? For the most part, it's the extreme left-wing in this Country. And for what purpose, because they want to "protect America's image?" Well, that's what they say, but more likely it's strictly for political gain, because if Dems didn't think it would benefit them personally, they wouldn't be bringing up the issue. Now, there's morality for you!

CDC,

You know what happens when you assume, don't you? You are assuming I haven't read, nor know the arguments against my position. In fact, I have said TWICE that Steve has made some thought-provoking comments regarding this issue. I can't say the same for you, however.

I know that the (im)moral equivalency argument is a strong and powerful argument. I have tried to state, through my own words and quotes, why, in this case, I reject that argument. Now, you and others may not agree with my position, but your "dubious" morality, or should I say moralizing, is quite tiresome. I have been found of saying that Liberals are quite insufferable. In my time here I have learned a powerful lesson, though probably not the one those here attacking ME (me, not my ideas) have thought I would learn. What I've learned is that ANY person, either or the Right, Center, or Left, that thinks they are CERTAIN about their position and everyone else is CERTAINLY wrong, are the truly insufferable person(s). Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!

Well, that's what they say, but more likely it's strictly for political gain, because if Dems didn't think it would benefit them personally, they wouldn't be bringing up the issue. Now, there's morality for you!

I guess we're just wasting time here arguing with people who never even read the newspapers. "If Dems didn't think it would benefit them personally"? Which "Dems"? Obama is the leading Dem, and he has made clear, over and over again, that he doesn't want this issue brought up at all, that he's opposed to any investigations because they distract from his current agenda, that we need to "move forward, not look back," etc. He also overruled the release of further torture photos that the administration had previously told a court would be released.

Eric Holder, functioning quasi-independently as the AG is supposed to do, could have have gone ahead despite Obama's wishes and ordered a full-blown investigation with no limitations as to its targets. Instead, all he did -- following a recommendation from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- was to take information compiled by the CIA's own inspector general about torture cases and turn it over to the career prosecutor who was already investigating the (probably illegal) destruction of videotapes of the torture. That prosecutor, John Durham, was appointed and given the videotape investigation by Bush's attorney general in 2008, before Obama was even formally nominated for the presidency. He is not a Democratic operative, he's a Republican appointee.

And even in taking this very limited step, Holder announced that he did NOT want any further investigation to go further up the chain of command, i.e. to those who constructed the torture regime in the first place. In fact he has all but immunized even the CIA torturers themselves as long as they were following the guidance of Justice Department lawyers, and this even though that guidance was later repudiated and those lawyers investigated for possible professional misconduct -- not by Obama or Holder but by the Bush Justice Department itself! (Holder is, for now, refusing to release the results of that misconduct investigation, although it reportedly is sharply critical of the lawyers' work and reportedly might recommend two or three of them for disbarment.)

So the only thing the new investigation targets is outright murder / sadism that went beyond even the torture that was already allowed. To oppose that investigation, you have to believe not only that "war is hell" but that, contrary to virtually all past American practice and doctrine, there is literally no atrocity that should be prosecuted, ever, in anything that goes by the name "war." AND you would have to believe that the "extreme left-wing" that's seeking its own advantage here includes George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, who initiated and oversaw the investigation on which this one piggybacks.

Bob, which of these facts is incorrect? And why should continue doing you the courtesy to keep answering you when you yourself can't be bothered to learn even these basic facts?

Bob

In other words, you can't refute the article, so you have to attack me...which was exactly what I expected.

Heh!

I have refuted your statements time and again (with first person testimony, links to medical professionals and historical documentation), and you must either ignore them or attack me in order to maintain your fascade. There is no argument here, because you are not actually doing anything other then repeating previous statements that have already been disproved by Steve, CFK, myself and others.

What I've learned is that ANY person, either or the Right, Center, or Left, that thinks they are CERTAIN about their position and everyone else is CERTAINLY wrong, are the truly insufferable person(s).

News flash to you, oh suddenly and conveniently open minded one:

There are such things as demonstrable facts that are not tangibly affected by erroneous opinions. It is a fact that waterboarding has been considered torture for the last millenium or so. It is a fact that torture is demonstrably evil, and contravenes values of Western Liberal Democracy and universal human rights...to say nothing of the norms and laws of land warfare, not to mention English Common Law.

You and your ilk are trying to undo that, and that is why I do not bother to hide my contempt. Whatever you smoke in your aforementioned "peace pipe"...it is nothing I want any part of. I regard attitudes such as what you espouse to be as dangerous to our Republic as any terrorist. The terrorist can only kill. You would actually destroy the foundation of human rights and dignity premised in Natural Law that led to our birth as a country. You would destroy our laws and our souls in order to "save" us.

Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And while we are on the subject of accusations of "insufferability":

Most people dislike vanity in others, whatever share they have of it themselves;

CDC said:

"In other words, you can't refute the article, so you have to attack me...which was exactly what I expected."

CDC, point number 2 above undercuts your complete argument. Sheesh. Here it is again for you.

"2) He is already on record in a CNN interview once explaining why the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere are neither prisoners of war nor are they warranted protection under the Geneva accords. The only thing that has changed since that admission is his job."

Bob Jones:

Bob, you asked: So, as far as the recent "political" moves to investigate American "war crimes," you have to ask yourself, who is driving this issue?

I am. I am driving this issue, and every citizen of the US should be driving this issue. The moment you give our leaders a blank check and a free ride is the moment you stop being a citizen in my eyes, and start looking very close to an enemy of every principle on which this nation was founded.

FTR, I am a registered Democrat (because I live in Philadelphia), a social liberal and fiscal conservative (being how I define "moderate" as it applies to me), and I have a personal, family history of the exigencies of war.

I think Holder is one or two outbursts or one more inept decision away from being Obamized under the bus.

Yet in the same comment you say that he's not acting independently. So, then, Obama is directing him to do things that will cause Obama to fire him? Or are you saying he's independent of Obama but not of someone else, and if so, who might that be, pray tell?

Oops. Sorry about that.

Hey Bob!

Ohhhh! Lookee here! More cites!

******************************

This resurrects the process of official cruelty under the Stuart monarchs in seventeenth century England. Persons accused of state crimes very frequently were interrogated with the use of specific techniques, including the rack, the thumbscrew, and waterboarding. King James I personally described the process in The Kings Booke (1606). He would, on the advice of his officers, “approve no new torture,” but he would certainly avail himself of the existing practices. In ascending order of severity they were: thumbscrews, the rack and waterboarding. That’s right. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of the official forms of torture. Worse than the rack and thumbscrews.

******************************************

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001917

I'm guessing you are going to say that the Stuart Monarchs were all peace pipe smoking lefty libtards for actually calling waterboarding torture(while using it on enemies of the Crown)

CDC stated:

"It is a fact that waterboarding has been considered torture for the last millenium or so."

CDC, since your off by around half a millennium, I can say unequivocally that your stated fact is WRONG.

From your own cite:

"Waterboarding was used in medieval times and was used by the Inquisition for more than 350 years -- from about 1478 to 1834 -- both in Spain and Mexico."

So now that I have PROVED you wrong, let's look at a more basic fact. WHEN was waterboarding universally acknowledge as a form of torture?

Pssst, kt, um, he was right re: color of law.

"color of law
n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket."

It could also apply to the use of torture by government officials, violating civil rights, human rights, on the basis of a legal right which does not exist. There is no right to torture. PERIOD. We have decided that throughout the history of the Republic.

Nice try, though.

Yes, Bob is incoherent. He refutes actual historical fact with opinion. I honestly don't know why 1.) we keep trying and 2.) he doesn't just head on over to the Fox News or resistnet forums and talk into the echo chamber.

CDC,

Since you find some interest in attacking my views regarding innocence and guilt, would you mind sharing your views regarding abortion and capital punishment?

Bob--we're all still waiting for you to adequately explain your views on why torture is acceptable. Frankly, I don't think anyone owes you any kind of explanation until you actually answer a question. A real one, not one you pose to yourself.

FWIW, I'm pro-life. Totally and completely. Even in cases of rape and incest. Betcha didn't expect that one, did you?

Yes, Bob is incoherent. He refutes actual historical fact with opinion. I honestly don't know why 1.) we keep trying.....

I think it's because we can't get at the real torturers, but Bob and kt and the others are handy proxies for them given the way they insist on torturing logic, language and their long-suffering readers.

But why is that right, Bob? Because everybody does it? Are you 12?

RSG said:

"Bob--we're all still waiting for you to adequately explain your views on why torture is acceptable. Frankly, I don't think anyone owes you any kind of explanation until you actually answer a question. A real one, not one you pose to yourself."

RSG, I have answered that question several times, and I have NEVER stated I believe torture is acceptable. That's you and others projecting your own ideas on to me.

What I have said is I don't believe WB is torture. I have provided quotes in support of my position. You don't agree, I understand that, but you do understand I don't agree with you, right?

Second, what I have said repeatedly is that the issue is not so black and white. That's pretty much about it.

RSG said:

"Before you get your knickers all in a bunch, I do not think women who have had abortions should be executed. I'm sure, though, you do."

There you go again, can you say projection?

No, RSG, I don't support women who have had abortions being executed.

As for Bob's query, though it wasn't addressed to me:

- I support the death penalty for first degree murder, treason, and the rape of children. And though it isn't in keeping with American traditions I have no particular problems with other countries doing things like caning convicted criminals, either.
- I oppose abortion except when there are serious threats to the health of the mother or when the fetus is not going to survive anyway.
- And I think waterboarding is horrible, immoral and illegal.

CDC,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply regarding abortion and cp. I don't really have much disagreement with your position. I, too, strongly lean libertarian, though those instincts stop when talking about "innocent" life. I had a different reason for bringing it up, however, and it's because over the years we have become much more tolerant, if that's the right word, of abortion as a practice. What you did, and what I do, is fall back on libertarian principles and leave it up to the woman to decide. What I find, ironic, is that many here don't see the difference when dealing with KNOWN guilty people (i.e. terrorists) and truly innocent people (i.e. fetuses).

In the case of CP, I understand your point about innocent people being falsely killed by the power of the State. That concerns me, also. This is the point many have also brought up regarding terrorists, i.e. that they are not really terrorist. Of course, ANYTHING we do, whether simply locking up or something much worse, is wrong if it's an innocent person.

As far as your response to my Hiroshima question yesterday, I will have to go back and see what you said.

Bob--you said this earlier:
I wonder, does RSG and others here call women who have had abortions "murderers?" I highly doubt it, though I think I could make a stronger case that a person who terminates her pregnancy is a more "sadistic" than someone who realizes that.

Sorry, to me that sounds like you do consider them murderers and you have quite extensively written about what you think should happen to murders.

No, Bob, that was not projection. I was trying to answer your next round of silliness before you got to it.

Answer this question: Why is waterboarding not torture? Explain that. Not with additional questions, straw men and red herrings. Answer the freakin question.

Sorry about that. Here is the link to the file by Evan Wallach...

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

The following are examples of the official and explicit condemnation of waterboarding by the U.S.:

(1) The court-martial of the soldier who waterboarded a suspected insurgent in the Philipines.

(2) The prosecution and conviction of Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs.

The SERE manual was a tacit condemnation of torture by the U.S., since it was preparing U.S. soldiers for what they might face as the POWs of rogue nations. The shift from using the SERE to defend soldiers against these practices to adopting these techniques as a way of treating OUR prisoners is, in fact, a discontinuity with our past policy and attitude towards torture.

Among the generation that fought the Second World War, it certainly would have been a fringe point of view that torture could be openly and officially used and embraced as a means to achieve victory. Human nature being what it is, I’m sure it would be acknowledged that these lines are crossed during war. But that is certainly to be lamented and is different from giving it the full blessing of the government by enshrining it in official policy. Policies and law instruct and shape attitudes. (Ignoring laws also influences our culture.)

This shift is just another symptom of the coarsening and decay of our culture as we jettison previously held limits that we no longer consider convenient. We are not on a good trajectory here.

FDR could not have imagined our nation debating the "right" to abortion. Reagan could not have imagined that we would be debating our country's use of torture. It is hard to understand why the destruction of human life in the womb is a "liberal" cause since liberals traditionally understand themselves to be champions of the weak and voiceless. It is hard to understand why the defense of torture as official government policy is a "conservative" cause since it has hitherto been their position to be wary of government power.

celtic and RSG, I haven't followed this whole sub-thread (and I appreciate the yeoman's service you're doing on it), but have you asked Bob what the point of waterboarding is if it ISN'T torture? If it's just "pouring water on someone's face" or similar to a fraternity prank, as Limbaugh and the other torturistas claim, then why would anyone think it remotely effective against master terrorists and hardened, implacable jihadis? Isn't the fact that it's torture implicit in the insistence of Cheney and others that it be kept avaialble for use against (their words) "the worst of the worst"?

Once again, the torture apologists seem to want it both ways: (a) Waterboarding doesn't torture its victims but (b) it's nonetheless capable of utterly breaking them (and therefore essential to U.S. national security). I mean, ?????

Good point, CFK.

Celtic dragon Critter, thanks for your service. I mean that.

Agreed, Celtic Dragon Critter. That's what we have the rule of law for - to enable us to act rightly despite our very human desire for revenge.

uh, pssst RSG, the term is meaningless in your example because then you have to define "torture" legally. the examples you cite to illustrate the theory, are (let's find a nice word...) atypical. in addition to being meaningless. oh noes.

In any case it is not a legal theory that enjoys a lot of discussion outside of academic circles, and even then it would never be used by serious legal scholars to classify Cheney as an "outlaw". now you get a fail as well. doh!

CFK, My theory of laws is not in opposition to the Founders. You would have the burden of proof in that argument.

Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate your relatively thoughtful consideration.