In the late 1990s, the American public couldn't get enough of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and the cable and network news outlets ran with it 24/7.
In the early months of 2008, the American public learned that the highest officials in the US government actually plotted, in the White House, ingenious ways to break US and international laws and torture al Qaeda detainees in order to get information from them.
I don't hear 24/7 coverage of this scandal. Maybe if some of the principals were having sex at the same time they were discussing torture methods, America would be fascinated by this amazing piece of news.
The national chest-thumpers who bellow 24/7 that this is "The Greatest Country In The World" have no right to their bellowing. We are no longer "The Greatest." We have sunk to the level of our most execrable enemies and dishonored the men and women who have died protecting what this country stood for. Under this odious administration, we have betrayed our highest principles.
In a time of extreme danger and threat, this country gave up its moral authority.
We didn't have to do this.
From ABC news:
Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks
President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods
Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.
"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"
Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved. "These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, [you should] just tell them to implement it."
Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.
At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.
A year later, amid the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects that was leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."
In the early months of 2008, the American public learned that the highest officials in the US government actually plotted, in the White House, ingenious ways to break US and international laws and torture al Qaeda detainees in order to get information from them.
I don't hear 24/7 coverage of this scandal. Maybe if some of the principals were having sex at the same time they were discussing torture methods, America would be fascinated by this amazing piece of news.
The national chest-thumpers who bellow 24/7 that this is "The Greatest Country In The World" have no right to their bellowing. We are no longer "The Greatest." We have sunk to the level of our most execrable enemies and dishonored the men and women who have died protecting what this country stood for. Under this odious administration, we have betrayed our highest principles.
In a time of extreme danger and threat, this country gave up its moral authority.
We didn't have to do this.
From ABC news:
Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks
President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods
Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.
"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"
Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved. "These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, [you should] just tell them to implement it."
Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.
At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.
A year later, amid the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects that was leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."
8 comments:
The greatness of our country is not defined by our individual leaders, but by our founding principles.
I will admit that I was of a similar mindset by the end of the Clinton administration. However, from that I've learned a few things.
First, we never know exactly how a President will be judged until years later, although I suspect Bush will be panned more for his domestic decisions rather than the events in Iraq.
Second, while we may have issues with each President that serves, that President is only there for 4 or 8 years, and we always have the opportunity to change the course of the country. Both Bush and Clinton were, despite excessively vocal opposition, able to secure a second term, whereas George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter were both relegated to the status of a one-termer. So both Bush and Clinton obviously did enough things right to be reelected. Although, to be fair, Nixon got reelected too, and that didn't end too well. But the point is that our leaders are never permanent and that the country is not permanently scarred by any one President.
And yes, the sex scandals are big for headlines. They tend to be juicier, both figuratively and literally.
What this story does lack, however are the specific methods you are defining as torture. If true torture methods were used, then it will be judged harshly by history. If they were harsh but not torture, they will be labeled as 'necessary' in a time of war against an enemy hellbent on destroying our way of life. As far as I am aware, the worst thing used has been the controversial waterboarding, which may or may not be torture, depending on who you ask. When there is concrete evidence of real torture, then you will have me in agreement that the Bush administration went over the line. But until then, it's a debate and not an indictment.
Finally, we are still The Greatest Country in the World both because of, and sometimes in spite of, the people that lead it. Because we are founded on a bedrock that is the Constitution, the greatness of this country will not be sashed away until that Constitution is lost. And for that reason, I will continue the chest thumping.
Once you accept that torture would be justified in one situation, avoiding the use of torture on other situations is no longer a moral imperative.
The question becomes where you draw the line.
This called "salami slicing."
You start with a seemingly solid principle, then start slicing:
If you would torture to save a million lives, would you do it for half a million? A thousand? Two dozen?
What if there's only a two-out-of-three chance that person you're torturing has the crucial information?
A 50-50 chance? One chance in 10?
At what point does your moral calculus change, and why?
Slice the salami too far, and the formerly solid principle disappears.
The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field.
Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.
If you do not consider this torture, then I'd suggest you and your fellow conservatives encourage this technique to be used in interrogations in prisons, then go on to police stations, or--why not--public schools to gain information from people who we think may do harm. You know, like kids who may be planning shootings at their local schools. Hey, I bet parents could get tons of information from their teens about their drug habits if they only use this little procedure. You could start a whole business by offering to build people's own little waterboarding rooms in private homes.
I would encourage you to suggest this procedure at your state's pententiary, police station, local high school, neighbors.
If you and your fellow conservatives believe waterboarding is not torture, then it should be used anywhere, anytime, and on anyone for the purpose of gaining crucial information to protect our communities as well as our nation.
You start slicing that salami, where does it stop?
Okay, here's where waterboarding is not okay:
It's not appropriate in our criminal justice system.
It's not justifiable on lawful enemy combatants.
It's not a permissible technique according to the Army field manual.
Okay, where it is justified is simple: When we are dealing with intelligence people, who are handling unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists), in situations where other techniques are ineffective, and when time is critical.
As I said, waterboarding is controversial and may be considered torture by many, including yourself. As long as it is a rarely used technique, used only by professionals, and on the rare person we have to get info out of, I'm ok with it, as I consider it a necessary war measure. And in winning war, I'm willing to let morality slide a little if the alternative is losing.
Now I know you're going to blast me for that last statement, but that's why there's oversight and rules for these things. Because some people will use them correctly, and some will abuse them. The trick is to nail the abusers. Ask the Abu Ghraib guards. They abused prisoners, and got nailed for it.
You wanted the line, I just drew it for you.
patrick m: When people start justifying torture, they have lost their way intellectually and morally. Torture is as ineffective as it is heinous.
Also, Shrub never was elected, much less reelected.
"harsh interrogation technique" = torture
And in winning war, I'm willing to let morality slide a little if the alternative is losing.
The problem is, Patrick, you may have very strict conditions under which you would apply torture.
But those conditions go all to hell in the fog of war, and under whose command the torture is being commited.
I'm sticking with slicing the salami analogy. Because saying a little bit of torture under special conditions is okay is like saying a little bit of genocide is okay to thin out a population that may have terrorists living among them.
You can't win that moral argument.
The trick is to nail the abusers. Ask the Abu Ghraib guards. They abused prisoners, and got nailed for it.
Do you really believe those guards acted on their own?
It is Donald Rumsfeld who should have been nailed. Right through the head for his approval and complicity in the torture and murder of prisoners under American military control at Abu Ghraib.
Amiable brief and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you seeking your information.
Opulently I acquiesce in but I dream the list inform should have more info then it has.
Post a Comment