Pres' Obama excuses CIA torture

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I dont give a shit about anything the UN says posts or anything. It is a corupt organization that is quite franky worthless and expensive.

So, by extension, you don't give a shit about the Constitution. Fair enough, that's certainly your prerogative. However, such an attitude undermines your interpretation of the law regarding torture, which includes water boarding.

Well that is a stretch. But I understant to attempt to make your point valid this is what you have to do.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

See, the part you dont get it that those caught in war are not covered under the constitution.

And I have never seen anyone say we should drive bamboo under their nails or hurt them. Scare the living hell out of them for the crap they are pulling? I am ok with that. And that includes waterboarding.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

See, the part you dont get it that those caught in war are not covered under the constitution.

.

Which shows just how poor your understanding of the Constitution really is, since that was not the point.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

See, the part you dont get it that those caught in war are not covered under the constitution.

Those US agents carrying out the torture are covered under the Constitution an international treaties to which the US is a party.

Quote

And I have never seen anyone say we should drive bamboo under their nails or hurt them. Scare the living hell out of them for the crap they are pulling? I am ok with that. And that includes waterboarding.

So, you are on record as being okay with torture.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I dont give a shit about anything the UN says posts or anything. It is a corupt organization that is quite franky worthless and expensive.

So, by extension, you don't give a shit about the Constitution. Fair enough, that's certainly your prerogative. However, such an attitude undermines your interpretation of the law regarding torture, which includes water boarding.

Well that is a stretch. But I understant to attempt to make your point valid this is what you have to do.

It's not a stretch at all. It's pretty clear, actually.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is.

How's that for confusing?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Some US troops are subjected to "water-boarding" as part of their training. Wonder if the Commander in Chief weighed that as part of his decision?

Do you meaning SERE training?

If yes, you do know the history behind that, yes? The SERE training methods were largely derived from tactics used or believed used by North Koreans and Soviets. The training manual was intended as training doctrine to enable US soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines to develop skills to resist torture by our enemies ... it was *not* intended as an instruction manual for what we should do.

The military services have been unequivocal in their objection to the use of torture.

I supect that, yes, that (what I wrote immediately above & have written before) was considered as part of President Obama's decison-making process, along with other factors.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is.

How's that for confusing?

On one hand, it is.

Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

And I have never seen anyone say we should drive bamboo under their nails or hurt them.

Anyone on dz.com?
Or anyone as representative of the federal government?
Or both?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

A memo from the Justice department saying that illegal activities are legal, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY make those activities legal.

Front line soldiers are no lawyers. It's one thing if you're talking about killing the prisoners. But the nuance between legal interrogation and unlawful torture? Just a bit past their pay grade. I think they can reasonably rely on the information they've given. If it's false, those supplying it are responsible.

I agree the legal implications and limits is not approporiate for every individual soldier to be interpreting and implementing in theater. That's (one reason) why the military has policy and doctrine.

I'm not understanding how that relates to [funjumper101]'s factural observation that DOJ memos on CIA interrogations methods (both by civilian federal employees and contractors) do not obviate federal law.

I also completely agree that it *is* the responsibility of folks/civilian leadership in Office of the Secretary of Defense, e.g., USD(I), to set policy and make decisions, and it is the responsibility of the service Secretaries, e.g., "Army Staff," to promolugate clear doctrine to the members of that service.

Similarly, within the office of the DCI, the civilian leadership, which was led from May 2006 to February 2009 by an active duty USAF General, should similarly establish priorities and policies for the Directorate of Operations (DO), who do HUMINT and interrogation.

What am I misssing in your response?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Last Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defese Gates spoke at the Army War College.

While he siad lots of things that I found very interesting, one response to a question from the audience has relevance to this thread, imo. It was also, again imo, very much an unscripted moment of insight.

Q. "As we study strategic leadership here, we've learned that many times a strategic leader makes decisions and policies that are often resisted by various stakeholders for political, financial and sometimes moral reasons. As a strategic leader, sir, what have been some of your greatest ethical challenges as a leader making decisions, and what recommendations do you have to us?"

SEC. GATES:"Well, I don't know if -- I would say I probably faced more ethical issues when I was director of CIA than as -- (laughter) -- the secretary of Defense.

"I -- my watchword -- and actually, I suppose it's a function of having spent a lifetime in the CIA, or a good part of it -- I believe that the guiding star for me has always been adherence to United States law.

"And in recognition and embrace of congressional oversight, I have always believed that, as painful and frustrating as it can be, that congressional oversight, whether it's over intelligence or over the military, is absolutely essential to keeping us all on the right track.



"I think that, you know, in terms of the core of your question, in terms of ethical decisions, I think it's – I guess I would put it in a different way. And what is -- what I have always observed about the president -- presidents, and President Obama is the eighth president I've worked for -- and I find to be the same case as secretary of Defense -- and that is that by the time a decision gets to the president, there are no good options."

"If there was a good option, somebody at a lower level would have made the decision and taken credit for it. (Laughter.)'

/Marg .... okay gotta go get on a plane

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is.

How's that for confusing?

On one hand, it is.

Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time.

Yes, but remember that the laws were thought unclear, which is why clarification was necessary.

So, you've got no clear law, and a statement from the Justice Department.

I'd be pretty confused.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is.

How's that for confusing?

On one hand, it is.

Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time.

Yes, but remember that the laws were thought unclear, which is why clarification was necessary.

So, you've got no clear law, and a statement from the Justice Department.

I'd be pretty confused.

Actually the laws were not thought to be unclear. Until John Yoo, et al. the laws, legal precedents, hostorical experience, and underlying issues were considered very clear, i.e., prohibiting water-boarding and other “enhanced "methods. See prosecution of Japanese for waterboarding during WWII as just one illustrative example.

What you suggest is the argument that was created and perpetuated by the DOJ and ODCI in order to permit actions.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is.

How's that for confusing?

On one hand, it is.

Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time.

Yes, but remember that the laws were thought unclear, which is why clarification was necessary.

The laws were and are very clear. Bush's DoJ deliberately muddied the waters.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree the legal implications and limits is not approporiate for every individual soldier to be interpreting and implementing in theater. That's (one reason) why the military has policy and doctrine.

I'm not understanding how that relates to [funjumper101]'s factural observation that DOJ memos on CIA interrogations methods (both by civilian federal employees and contractors) do not obviate federal law.

It's not a question of is it illegal. It's the question of who do you hold accountable? Those who set the policy certainly should be, but should those soldiers who act on this direction be tried as war criminals?

It's easy to say that the SS at the concentration camps could be held accountable, though even in their case the alternative to following orders was also to be shot. (And let's not think about the Germans convicted for crimes we later knew were committed by Stalin's men). Physical torture with death or at least permament physical damage is simple to assess.

Mental anguish for torture methods that do not leave physical defects is not nearly so obvious, and when they're told this is sanctioned by the Chief, I see it reasonable for a front line grunt to act with that in mind.

I personally think it was the duty of Congress or the Court to quickly settle the matter, not wait for the next election.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I personally think it was the duty of Congress or the Court to quickly settle the matter, not wait for the next election.

"In 2005, motivated in part by the global and domestic outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and requires that all interrogations in military facility comply with the Army Field Manual. The law was weakened by amendments and the White House's attempt at circumventing the limits on detainee torture.

"Congress followed this bill protecting detainees by passing the Military Commissions Act which created the framework for panels of military officers to try Guantánamo detainees who are charged with war crimes. Officially, the bill bans torture, but was controversial because it also strips detainees of basic due process rights, including the ability to challenge their detention in court or bar testimony acquired through coercion. The passage of the act was seen as a victory for President George W. Bush because it embraced his view that the battle against terrorism requires extreme limits on the rights of defendants."

"On March 7, 2008, President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act, criticizing the bill for abandoning "practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.
The Intelligence Authorization Bill, which cleared the House in December 2007 and passed the Senate in February 2008, would ban the controversial practice known as waterboarding, as well as sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions."

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I personally think it was the duty of Congress or the Court to quickly settle the matter, not wait for the next election.

"In 2005, motivated in part by the global and domestic outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and requires that all interrogations in military facility comply with the Army Field Manual. The law was weakened by amendments and the White House's attempt at circumventing the limits on detainee torture.

"Congress followed this bill protecting detainees by passing the Military Commissions Act which created the framework for panels of military officers to try Guantánamo detainees who are charged with war crimes. Officially, the bill bans torture, but was controversial because it also strips detainees of basic due process rights, including the ability to challenge their detention in court or bar testimony acquired through coercion. The passage of the act was seen as a victory for President George W. Bush because it embraced his view that the battle against terrorism requires extreme limits on the rights of defendants."

"On March 7, 2008, President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act, criticizing the bill for abandoning "practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.
The Intelligence Authorization Bill, which cleared the House in December 2007 and passed the Senate in February 2008, would ban the controversial practice known as waterboarding, as well as sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions."

And he should have vetoed this whiny piece of liberal feel good crap.

Good job sir!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's not a question of is it illegal. It's the question of who do you hold accountable? Those who set the policy certainly should be, but should those soldiers who act on this direction be tried as war criminals?

It's easy to say that the SS at the concentration camps could be held accountable, though even in their case the alternative to following orders was also to be shot. (And let's not think about the Germans convicted for crimes we later knew were committed by Stalin's men). Physical torture with death or at least permament physical damage is simple to assess.

Thanks for the clarification.

Soldiers who have been found to be in violation have been tried through military courts. (Using “soldier” as short-hand for all members of the uniformed military service.)

E.g., convictions (i.e., laws that were broken) for prisoner abuse and maltreatment in Iraq and abuse at Bagram in Afghanistan; the findings of the DoD’s (MG) Taguba report; the findings of the Army’s (MG) Fay report, which explicitly found that the abuse and maltreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was tantamount to torture (p. 98 & p. 145); and what’s been publically revealed about findings of the Army’s (still classified) Ryder report. Individual soldiers violating law and doctrine have been prosecuted. Things happen in the ‘fog of war;’ it would be naïve to suggest otherwise. That’s (one more reason) why there are policies and procedures to deal with potential violations on the field of battle/in theater.

I am not aware of anything that rises to the level of war crimes with respect to action of individual deployed soldiers, sailors, airman, or Marines in Afghanistan or Iraq.

As I noted above there have been criminal prosecutions in which individual have been found guilty of violating military codes. Some have been found innocent and some have been convicted.

W/r/t the most well-known incidents of prisoner abuse, “torture” per MG Fay’s report, the 1-star General in charge of the prison at the time was demoted. BG Karpinski asserts that she was made “scape-goat” for policies of SecDef Rumsfeld’s OSD.

I don’t think there substantial evidence to support a case of war crimes against the OSD leadership at the time. There might be … but the court of public opinion is not where the decision should be made, imo. I do acknowledge that it is more likely to be, tho.’



Otoh, if we go to the issue of interrogations by CIA federal employee and CIA contractors, there is also substantial evidence, but there has neither been the level of public and publically-disclosed investigations nor the same effort of prosecution. E.g., documented medical evidence; the FOIA-obtained FBI memo stating interrogators from an ‘other-government-agency’ (OGA) & OGA contractors impersonated FBI agents and used “torture techniques” against Guantanamo detainees; and the library of other FOIA-obtained documents mostly on policy.

Quote

Mental anguish for torture methods that do not leave physical defects is not nearly so obvious, and when they're told this is sanctioned by the Chief, I see it reasonable for a front line grunt to act with that in mind.

I disagree with the suggestion of “reasonable.” May an individual inclined to behave sadistically or criminally rationalize their behavior if he or she considers it “sanctioned by the Chief” or other influential figure? Perhaps. (E.g., John Hinckley, Jr's demented beliefs that shooting President Reagan were what Jodie Foster wanted.) And one can build an argument such w/r/t at least one of the soldiers convicted for abuses at Abu Ghraib.

For the vast majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, I disagree. First order "reasonable" is more likely to be based on institutional and institutionalized behavior, e.g., those FMs I keep citing, the warrior ethos, appeal to history of honor and valor (e.g., “History is the Marine Corps’s religion”), and the examples set by senior officers and NCOs.

Quote

I personally think it was the duty of Congress or the Court to quickly settle the matter, not wait for the next election.

Concur. I’d still like to “put Senator McCain in charge of bi-partisan investigation of inappropriate use of ‘enhance interrogation,’ ‘exceptionally harsh questioning,’ or whatever euphemism one wants to use for torture. Give it teeth and the power to impact appropriations, i.e., budgets.”


When the issue of immunity from prosecution came up past November, in the thread “Obama advisers: No charges likely vs interrogators” w/r/t the comments by two of then-Sen Obama's advisors, my speculation at the time was that they would pursue something closer to a “Truth & Reconciliation”-esque policy than aggressive prosecution. Aggressive prosecution may not only be hard politically (e.g., see folks here who still argue torture/water-boarding is somehow justifiable [aka situational ethics]), it may also be impossible by standards of evidence required under rule of law.

As it was then, it remains the policy option that I would recommend pursuing. Pursuit of what might be perceived as vindictive retribution does not serve the interests of the US. Likewise, ignoring it, wishing it would ‘just go away,’ or being in denial about actions executed by individuals acting on the behalf of the USG does not serve US interests.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think it was the duty of Congress or the Court to quickly settle the matter, not wait for the next election.

"On March 7, 2008, President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act, ...

The Intelligence Authorization Bill, which cleared the House in December 2007 and passed the Senate in February 2008, would ban the controversial practice known as waterboarding, as well as sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions."

And he should have vetoed this whiny piece of liberal feel good crap.

Good job sir!

GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret), and the 42 other retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers, supported HR 2082, the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.” The bill would have required the CIA to use the Army FM 2-22.3 as guidance – & that’s ‘guidance’ in military speak not popular vernacular – w/r/t interrogation operations. HR 2082 was co-sponsored by Reps Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Maybe the characterization above is worth re-examining in context of additional information, eh? How many people here other than me actually read the text of the bill or even Section 327 on "Limitation on Interrogation Techniques"?


In my reading of the bill and understanding of some of the intelligence community concerns and classification issues (mostly having to do with requirements to reveal information on Special Access Programs (SAP) and other high-level classified programs to Congressional oversight committees), I would argue that President GW Bush’s veto was more complicated and reflects larger executive branch privilege disagreements than being a simple ‘up’ or ‘down’ vote on water-boarding by the CIA.

Executive privilege was the main factor in the veto not waterboarding, “enhanced interrogation” methods, or other euphemisms for torture.
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

It is eye opening how many have said that the technics are not reliable. This claim is now being challenged by many including Bill Clintons director. Now Cheney is saying release more documents to counter this claim

Getting interesting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

I guess that it's not an exact science... Some 'targets' are more resilient than others and some 'practitioners' have more skills than others.

There will be people who have seen positive outcomes from good solid intelligence and yet others who have just been told anything just to stop the -ve activities.

Who's right?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I guess that it's not an exact science... Some 'targets' are more resilient than others and some 'practitioners' have more skills than others.

There will be people who have seen positive outcomes from good solid intelligence and yet others who have just been told anything just to stop the -ve activities.

Who's right?

All of the above.

Different people require different techniques for positive results.

Those who have been subjected to training or have a more grounded ideaological belief system will resist much more easily

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It is eye opening how many have said that the technics are not reliable. This claim is now being challenged by many including Bill Clintons director. Now Cheney is saying release more documents to counter this claim

Getting interesting

Or getting desperate?

I am very much looking forward to release of what Mr. Cheney has purported. Thus far every claimed instance of water-boarding, "enhanced interrogation," or other torture securing intelligence has been false: information was already available, produced reams of faulty information, or just plain lies.

Now history is not predictive; it should not be ignored either.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It is eye opening how many have said that the technics are not reliable. This claim is now being challenged by many including Bill Clintons director. Now Cheney is saying release more documents to counter this claim

Getting interesting

Or getting desperate?

I am very much looking forward to release of what Mr. Cheney has purported. Thus far every claimed instance of water-boarding, "enhanced interrogation," or other torture securing intelligence has been false: information was already available, produced reams of faulty information, or just plain lies.

Now history is not predictive; it should not be ignored either.

/Marg

Desperate? No, interested? Yes.

There are conflicting statements being made by many people. Real results can answer many questions. Ihave to believe there is a real reason Cheney is asking for more to be released

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Desperate? No, interested? Yes.

There are conflicting statements being made by many people. Real results can answer many questions. Ihave to believe there is a real reason Cheney is asking for more to be released

Yes, he's desperate to defend his policies and his choices. (Not you.) Rather than taking responsibility. Again I look forward to the release of more information - transparency.

I strongly suspect that the release of more information will further show what we've seen thus far, i.e., torture is counter-productive and, as Sen McCain has also said the use of torture and “enhanced interrogation” has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad.

“So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.”

“What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.”

That last part is in what I am most interested.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying