| Balkinization   |
|
Balkinization
|
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Military versus the Politicians on Torture
JB
This Washington Post op-ed by two retired generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, appropriately titled, "It's Our Cage Too," shows that the Petraeus letter condemning torture was hardly an isolated example. Put simply: The military gets it; our political leaders don't. The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation. These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences. To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
Comments:
Hillary Clinton is pro-torture too. See http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=314594. Can we reasonably expect the next president, whoever he or she may be, to relinquish the dictatorial powers that Congress has allowed Bush to seize?
Putting aside the ongoing labeling argument here about what constitutes "torture," I would like to revisit the issue of the efficacy of coercive interrogation techniques.
While the left was falling all over itself praising George Tenet's new book as another attack on Mr. Bush, they appear to have ignored Mr. Tenet's discussion of the very high effectiveness of coercive interrogation as an intelligence gathering tool: A CIA program to administer aggressive interrogations to top Al Qaeda leaders brought America more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts, a former director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has declared. Mr. Tenet said the program was needed to deal with threats that emerged after September 11, 2001, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York. "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us," he said. Mr. Tenet, who led the CIA between 1997 and 2004, defended the aggressive interrogations as appropriate to deal with figures such as the reputed mastermind of the 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The former director said Mr. Mohammed initially rebuffed questioning by saying, "I'll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer." al Qaeda is not stupid. They know how our system works and they game it. It would be the height of irresponsibility to extend a civilian right to silence to the military enemy architect of 9/11 who has nearly complete knowledge of the identity, location and plans of al Qaeda cells around the work. The GOP candidates and the American people are using their God given common sense when they support using every measure short of actual torture - the intentional infliction of severe pain - to gain the necessary intelligence to defeat the enemy. Can you say the same about the Dem candidates?
Your belief that al-Qaeda war criminals are tortured at Gitmo is absurd. Sleep deprivation and water boarding do not constitute torture. If you want to know what torture actually is, I devoted a couple of posts over at napoleon15.blogspot.com to the subject.
Napoleon15, interesting that you don't consider waterboarding torture. After the Khmer Rouge left power, a musem was built in memorial to the wide range of atrocities he committed on the poeple of Cambodia. The only device they chose to indicate the horrors of the torture was one, the water board. Could you please show your posts to the people of Cambodia, who suffered more mightily than many populations ever do at the hands of the Khmer and help them to understand a little more about how uninformed they are about torture, and why the water board is not a torture technique?
Bart's problem is summed up in these words:
The GOP candidates and the American people are using their God given common sense when they support using every measure short of actual torture - the intentional infliction of severe pain - to gain the necessary intelligence to defeat the enemy. Bart, If you thought you were going to die while suffering physical restraint, would that not inflict severe pain to you? Also, why are all these successes still classified? Al-Qaeda has long known that KSM rolled. Any plots tied to his knowledge would have been aborted by now, or changes so that he could not reveal any useful details to us. Yet we only hear about plots (imagined or not) foiled through ordinary detective work (though some by plotters who would have a hard time breaking out of a wet recycled paper bag). Come on, you've got ties to these people (at least they send you your talking points), so you or they should be able to tell us how they've saved us, without compromising anything that would actually protect us. And answer, please. You could even go to the alternate thread on torture and answer, because you have several unanswered questions waiting for you there. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/warm-republican-embrace-of-torture.html
To those who claim torture is so effective that it can not be returned to the bottle, remind yourself who it is who has worked most effectively to reign in this Administration's policies of secret torture and warrantless surveillance - the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Post a Comment
Here's the backstory behind Comey's race with Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room. A February 2006 Newsweek feature exposing the rift within DOJ over torture and warrantless wiretapping: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek / . Only now, long after it happened, is there a real public spotlight on the governmental rebellion against the warrantless surveillance program. Because of its obvious dramatic appeal, our attention is drawn to the uprising at DOJ in 2004. But, its epicenter was elsewhere and the rebellion started earlier. It didn't start at DOJ. Jack Goldsmith is a major player in these events. Goldsmith, who was in the Pentagon General Counsel's office before moving over to Main Justice, was carrying out a mandate that came from the highest levels of the JCS and NSA to put a halt to John Yoo's torture policies and Richard Addington's warrantless surveillance programs. The top brass, in quite plain terms, wanted out of those lines of business. May I offer the proposition that the salutory changes that Goldsmith brought to DOJ wasn't just one man's influence, but that he carried the consensus message with him of the Joint Chiefs, DIA, and NSA about the suitability for continued command of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Most immediately, the loss of confidence by the Generals was due to the Iraq War, but as the military knows, the failure of the occupation was just an outcome of some extremely ill-founded political decisions. If there is a date to be attached, it was May 28, 2003, when the Iraq Survey Group (not to be confused with the later Iraq Study Group) released its interim report that concluded that WMDs were not present inside Iraq, leaving the reader to question the sources of information that had been promoted by the Office of the Vice President received from Dougie Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP). DIA and CIA quickly identified an agent of influence and espionage ring as the source. The Larry Franklin-AIPAC-OSP prosecution and the appointment of US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate and prosecute Dick Cheney's outing of Valerie Plame was the response. That prosecutorial initiative, I would suggest, came from within the Pentagon, without which neither case would ever have been prosecuted, and we would now be knee-deep in blood and rubble in Iran. Mark G. Levey Alexandria, VA
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |