What does all of this mean? It may suggest that the party now in power is feeling its oats after having regained control of the Congress two years ago and of the Presidency this year, and senses a need to have its modestly disaffected left side coalesce around its middle to carry out programs more attractive to its left side than to anyone else. Like a pubescent child newly discovering the pleasures of sex, it may just want to get laid, right now, without regard to the consequences. Or, it may suggest that having screwed up royally on the recent "stimulus package," which it pushed through without understanding either its import or its consequences, it wants to divert attention from its past fiascoes and move on to new ones. Or it may simply mean that despite President Obama's great audience appeal, he is seen as well over his head in multiple messes with which neither he, nor his confidants, are able to appear to deal effectively without creating interesting but unrelated and damaging distractions.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ma r k
However, it is argued that the portions of the U.S. Code dealing with "torture" are to be read independently of the Geneva Convention and its various protocols. I think this is incorrect.
The Convention is referenced in US code where torture is treated as a war crimes (Chapter 118). What is the argument that consideration of the Convention applies where torture is treated as a crime in itself (Chapter 113C)?
2 - Jay
During the 1960's the U.S. Air Force would waterboard their own pilots to prepare them for what was ahead should they ever be captured by the enemy. To call waterboarding torture is pure bull-feathers.
3 - Dan(Miller)
Ma r k,
I said that it is my understanding that the statutes should be read in conjunction with the Geneva Conventions, and that is, in fact, my understanding. However, what I have read on the subject seems to be based on less than rigorous legal and historical analysis and I saw no useful purpose in relying on it.
Accordingly, I intentionally did not seek to rely on the point and assumed, for the sake of argument, that the criminal statutes can properly be read independently for purposes of prosecution under the statutes. To research the question of dependency on the Geneva Conventions adequately is beyond my resources; it would require access to much more on the history of the statutes and of the Conventions than I have. That information is probably available somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it on the internet. If you have anything definitive, I would certainly appreciate it if you would share it with us.
However, for purposes of my argument as presented in the article, it does not matter, because I assumed that the statues would apply regardless of limitations provided for in the Geneva Conventions.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Dan(Miller)
Jay, I agree. However, the question has been raised and some have a different view, which I consider to be inadequately considered. The article was an attempt to provide some sort of a context for the discussion and possibly to remove it from an abstract realm into a realm in which actual people on earth have to function in frequently unpleasant circumstances.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Ma r k
Dan, I followed your argument when I read it; my question -- which I'm having alot of difficulty finding an answer to -- is on the side issue. If you happen on a source, I'd appreciate it.
6 - Dan(Miller)
Ma r k
If you happen on a source, I'd appreciate it. I'll look some more, but if you find something, please do provide it to the rest of us. It could provide an unambiguous answer to the question of how and whether to proceed with what now appears to me to be rather an inquisition.
Dan(Miller)
7 - Dr Dreadful
Jay @ #2,
By that logic, a football player pulling on an opponent's helmet isn't a foul because his team prepared for it by pulling each other's helmets during training.
8 - Dan(Miller)
Doc, my agreement with Comment #2 was perhaps poorly phrased. My agreement was with the thesis that water boarding is not "torture" as defined in the U.S. Code (or, certainly, in the Geneva Conventions).
That the U.S. military simulates water boarding, while (as far as I know) it does not subject its members to acts likely to cause severe or even serious physical or mental harm or pain during training (e.g, slowly immersing them in vats of sulfuric acid) suggests that it views water boarding as something less than "torture" as statutorily defined.
Obviously, pulling on a player's helmet during practice is rather different from water boarding or even "torture" as defined in the U.S. Code, and a foul during a football game is rather different from "torture."
Dan(Miller)
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
There's a big difference between being waterboarded for military training, and being waterboarded because someone (who probably hates you) wants you to sing.
I think I can safely say that when the military waterboarded, it was only done in strictly controlled situations, with the admonishment beforehand that it was just an example of what they might face in capture...and they were told they would not die.
Were the ones we waterboarded given the same admonishments? I think not...and you know as well as I do of the value of the saying, "forewarned is forearmed".
Additionally, if waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation methods' worked so well (in direct opposition to EVERYTHING said by WWII interrogators of both German and Japanese prisoners), then why did Khalid Sheik Mohammed need to be waterboarded 183 times, six times a day for a month????.
"Gee, Lieutenant - we waterboarded him 125 times so far, and we ain't got anything!"
"'Sokay, Sarge - maybe we'll get lucky on number 126!"
Dan, most of us - including you and I - are patriots here. Do you remember how the Republicans howled about how Clinton shamed the nation for a little fellatio? Yet where is the moral outrage now? WHY do the conservatives defend this torture so strenuously when (1) it is against American law, American military law, and international law (even if you try to interpret it differently), (2) To a man, the WWII interrogators stated that such 'enhanced interrogation' does NOT produce quality intel, and (3) we have publicly sacrificed our national honor and moral authority as a nation for the sake of expediency.
I'm not naive. Yes, the armies of every nation tortures sooner or later in the field...but to have it as POLICY, directed even from the White House? To continue to conduct such operations even when whiffs of it began being making its way into the mainstream media?
Dan, AMERICA (including you and I) invaded Iraq on false pretenses. AMERICA tortured in the name of expediency. AMERICA took men (many of them innocent of ANY wrongdoing) - and children as young as fourteen years old and imprisoned them for years in Gitmo without trial. AMERICA allowed Afghanistan to have record-breaking crops of heroin after we took control. AMERICA wasted over 4,000 military lives and over 700 billion dollars on a military adventure...that was begun on FALSE pretenses!
To me, honor cannot be had unless one is willing to hold oneself publicly accountable...even when no one else is demanding such accountability. To me, the ONLY way we can regain our national honor (and moral authority) is to prosecute those who brought such shame upon America.
On a side note - Cheney stated that on 9/11, al-Qaeda was not well-known and we knew little about them. Of course, I'm sure you're aware that al-Qaeda bombed the Cole and they were among the TOP terrorist groups on our watch list on 9/10.
Hold them accountable, Dan. Without accountability, there is no honor.
10 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
I understand the difference between water boarding for training purposes and water boarding to extract information from a prisoner. However, I do not think that when used for the latter purpose under medical supervision it amounts to "torture" as defined in the relevant statutes and/or conventions. Water boarding is highly unpleasant, and is intended to be; however, it seems to cause neither severe nor serious physical or mental pain, and the effects are transitory. Reasonable men can differ on the interpretation, but "Monday morning quarterbacking" for partisan political purposes, as seems to me to be happening, is quite unfortunate -- particularly when it comes from folks who had long been aware of what was being done and who approved it or at least acquiesced in it until it became politically convenient to complain.
As to the effectiveness of water boarding and other forms of harsh interrogation, the question remains open. One of the things I found offensive about the recently released materials was the omission of those portions dealing with effectiveness. Some of the comments by those whose information was included in the released materials, but whose statements about effectiveness were redacted, are quoted in the article. While I agree that if "torture" is completely ineffective, it should never be used. However, if it is effective, and can save lives by preventing future terrorist attacks, I think its use can occasionally be appropriate.
I do remember how the Republicans howled about how Clinton shamed the nation for a little fellatio . . . . Frankly, I don't much care about President Clinton's sexual escapades, although doing in the Oval Office things which might have been less inappropriate if done elsewhere was disgraceful. However, much of the outrage, mine included, was based on his commission of perjury, for personal benefit. I can understand lying, even under oath, when necessary to preserve national security. To do it to cover one's own personal misconduct is different.
As stated in the article, the entire matter of "torture" could be handled far better by simply changing the pertinent statutes to prohibit it, prospectively, clearly and with sufficient specificity to be clear to all concerned. A partisan witch hunt, as now appears to be in progress, is not, to me, a viable option.
Dan(Miller)
PS Since there is presently no "preview comment" capability on the new site, I have not been able to do that. I don't think there are any open tags or garbles, but if there are, I apologize in advance.
11 - Dan(Miller)
Re # 11 -- what the heck is this? Spam?
Dan(Miller)
12 - roger nowosielski
This new and improved site has got a long way to go. Prepare yourself for some pain in days ahead.
13 - Clavos
Yes.
One of the glitches being addressed...
14 - Clavos
#14 responds to #12
15 - Cindy
Where is the complaint form? What a chore having pages and pages of comments, with no way to see them all on one page.
How is one supposed answer comments on the preceding pages without a headache?
16 - roger nowosielski
Well, they've eliminated scrolling which, though cumbersome, provided for the thread's better continuity. But the worst part is you can't get to the end at an instant, and that's a bitch. Also, no preview option.
17 - roger nowosielski
Another suggestion: I'm not interested in comments on other side if I'm in the Politics section - because if I happen to be engaged with people there, I want to access their responses immediately if not sooner. So please amend the site to show the most recent comments appropriate to the section you happen to engaged with, rather than comments at large.
18 - roger nowosielski
Also, the "Fresh Articles" list shouldn't be set as as a default. The "Fresh Comments" appropriate to the section in question ought to be so. If I want to see the newest in Music or Culture or Sci/Tech, I'll go there to find out; and so will the general public.
Common, guys. This is common sense. Keep it nice and simple.
19 - Clavos
Cindy,
The tech guys are aware of the problems, and are addressing them. Naturally, there are priorities, so not all problems will be addressed immediately.
I will say this, I am a veteran of several major IT changes like this in which I participated while working in the airline biz, as we upgraded and revamped entire reservations systems, complete with huge call centers. This cutover has (so far) been one of the most trouble- and glitch-free I have seen.
Everybody have a little patience, please.
Roger you can reach the end of comments (up to #100 only-still being addressed) by clicking anywhere in the comments and then hitting the "end" button on your key board. I just tried that on this thread, and it works fine.
¡Paciencia, por favor!
20 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, Dan Miller, for using your thread to raise these issues before we move on to the substance of your article, but as of this moment, navigation and ease of use have seriously been jeopardize.
We must correct these glitches to ensure smooth operation in the future.
21 - roger nowosielski
I will, Clavos. We have been so spoiled. Apologies to Dan Miller for using this thread to address technical problems before the substance of his article; but as of now, they take precedence.
22 - roger nowosielski
Where is the "end" button on my keyboard? I must be blind.
23 - Cindy
No prob Clav and thanks for the reply. I just hope that they consider that one really does need to be able to see all the comments at the same time.
24 - Dan(Miller)
Although I have seen very few results, I understand that the powers that be are working diligently and that all will soon be well.
In the meantime, please be aware that the various blockquotes in the articles are neither indented nor otherwise set off from the text; the HTML codes are there, but do not work. This can be very confusing when reading my latest article, which has numerous blockquotes. Also, if I don't respond to a comment immediately, it is because the automatic e-mail notification of new comments does not appear to be working. I have received no notification of any comments after number 9.
Dan(Miller)
25 - Dan(Miller)
This comment did not appear when posted, so I am going to try again:
Although I have seen very few results, I understand that the powers that be are working diligently and that all will soon be well.
In the meantime, please be aware that the various blockquotes in the articles are neither indented nor otherwise set off from the text; the HTML codes are there, but do not work. This can be very confusing when reading my latest article, which has numerous blockquotes.
Also, should I take a while to respond to comments, it is because the automatic e-mail notification of new comments does not seem to be working. The last comment of which I was notified was number 9.
Dan(Miller)