Courage over Nuance, Optics over Substance

I can't help but look for signs indicating whether America can reverse its suicidal tendencies post-9/11. Along the way, I've noticed actual signs indicating irreversible division in parts of the country. Here's a meaningless sticker I saw over the weekend: 

It states, "I stand for our anthem." I don't disagree with the idea behind the bumper sticker--I, too, stand for our national anthem--but people in affluent, politically-stable countries don't put political ideas on bumper stickers. They're able to perform basic daily functions--driving, shopping, dating, etc.--without ideological wedges. I've visited 49 countries, and excepting President Duterte's election, I've yet to see a well-off Asian adult use political stickers. 

The owner of the van lives in an affluent area near the beach and appears to own a business. His small house needed paint and repairs, and I didn't understand why anyone would want to buy handyman services from someone whose house didn't appear on the up and up. Then I realized the political sticker might be his way of being counter-culture and attracting like-minded customers. It cannot be easy being a minority in a college town so in-your-face liberal, even I, a tolerant sort of fellow, shudder at its leftism. Rainbow flags and pins are so common, you're surprised when you don't see them. How such signaling helps resolve deep-seated issues, including one of the highest rates of criminality in the country, is beyond me. (Hint: if it's easy to do, it probably doesn't do anything, something most of us learn after 30.) 

Older business owners in the same city recently displayed large signs supporting local police as a response to perceived bias: "WE SUPPORT OUR POLICE." One wonders, "Is there anyone who doesn't support honest police officers?" Is the city of Santa Cruz, California arguing its police department has no corruption or its police union has a consistent history of removing poorly behaving officers more quickly and more efficiently than other cities? If so, that's one helluva bumper sticker, except, of course, such arguments won't fit on a bumper sticker. The lesson? Extremism attracts counter-reactions which go nowhere substantive because extremism by definition involves ideas tailor-made for bumper stickers: short, simple, and stupid. (On that note, the best political bumper stickers identify a specific problem, encouraging discussion--"It's the economy, stupid"--instead of choosing a side.) 

Not coincidentally, I've noticed another common motif in modern America: lack of nuance. 

Sunday, May 13, 2018, Yahoo.com front page

After 9/11, the United States waterboarded members of a terrorist group it believed were linked to 9/11. It's unclear how many times waterboarding occurred, but it occurred between 5 and 15 times in sessions lasting up to 20 minutes each, and it's possible 83 to 183 applications of water were applied to simulate drowning over a three-week period. I'm not interested in the exact details because as we'll see, it doesn't matter as much as the lines governments cross in their cost-benefit analysis relating to potentially immoral actions.

The torture failed, based on the CIA's own documents, to produce actionable information. From The New Yorker: "No information provided by Mohammed led directly to the capture of a terrorist or the disruption of a terrorist plot." As typical in such scenarios, false information was provided because the detainee "simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear." Ultimately, in exchange for information that wasn't immediately actionable, the United States decided it was willing to risk its international standing and reputation--permanently. 

Once a line has been crossed, everything tends to becomes harder in the absence of principles, increasing risks of greater and harsher counter-measures. Abu Ghraib, the site of American war crimes, didn't arise spontaneously. It took steady line crossing and an absence of principled leadership to get there. Sadly, we tend to forget principles preventing immoral actions in exchange for speculative benefits don't just protect "the other" side--they also protect you by preserving your reputation and increasing chances you'll receive viable information in the future. 

After any incident damaging to a country's reputation, whether Abu Ghraib or widespread kneeling during the national anthem, a tactic to preserve citizen loyalty is to flood media with out-of-context activities or outliers, making it harder to ascertain full details. Disinformation has always been an intelligence agency tactic, but in an age where private and public actors can manipulate Google and Yahoo searches as well as your social media feeds, it's become pathological. For our purposes, we must understand the more false information, the less likely it is that groups will ever determine agreed-upon details and reach more difficult questions, including ones involving morality and transparency. The result? As long as people are divided against each other, existing power players and politicians can control the dialogue and character of a nation. 

By now, we know we don't need to click on the link showing a Special Forces solider waterboarding himself to know he didn't do it anywhere near the number of times applied to a terrorist suspect, making his experiment worthless. A single pin prick might not constitute torture, but a hundred pin pricks without a definite end date is a different matter. The lesson: a country without firm principles will flounder and eventually fade away because any approach becomes justifiable. I will end with words on sincerity, misleading thoughts, and exaggerated statements from In Behalf of Advertising (1929): 

It's only been 89 years, but it seems like such a long time ago. Does anyone know the Latin phrase for "Without bumper stickers"? 

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

Bonus: "I am not educated, but I am sincere, and my sincerity is my credentials." -- Malcolm X 

Leon Panetta Speaks at SCU

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, spoke at Santa Clara University last week (October 8, 2010). He was entertaining and clearly proud of his Italian heritage. In one of his best moments of the night, he told a story about the necessity of fighting for your beliefs:

A priest and a rabbi want to learn more about each other's beliefs, so they attend a boxing match. One of the boxers goes to the corner and makes the sign of the cross. The rabbi sees this and asks the priest, “What does that mean?” The priest responds, “Not a damn thing, if he can’t fight.” (It’s much funnier when spoken.)

Overall, Panetta said all the right things. He is against “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture (he said the CIA uses the Army Field Manual on interrogations). He thinks the media is doing Americans a disservice through its soundbite-style reporting (and even took a jab at Fox news, saying that the media panders to the lowest common denominator because they don’t want to be “outfoxed.”) In any case, here are the highlights of Panetta's speech as I saw them:

In D.C., “gridlock is the order of the day.”

Panetta singled out Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as hotbeds of terrorism. He said that Pakistan had nuclear weapons and Al-Qaeda leaders.

He said India was an emerging power but will have to deal with its poverty problem [which may limit its ascendancy].

He said, “My job is to tell the truth,” whether they [the White House and Congress] like to hear it or not.

The CIA has four basic missions: counter-terrorism (CT); counter-proliferation; cyber-security; and minimizing the risk of surprise.

One interesting quote: “We are conducting a war within Pakistan.”

“Security and stability are our top priorities.”

On nuclear proliferation, “all we need is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” he said with an exasperated tone.

He singled out North Korea as an active proliferator that shares nuclear technology with other countries. He also mentioned Iran's nuclear program, but didn't provide much detail other than mentioning it as a potential catalyst for a nuclear arms race.

On cyber-security, Panetta singled out China and Russia as potential threats. He said the “next Pearl Harbor could be a cyberattack” that shuts down our power grid or financial system. He said we experience hundreds of thousands of cyberattacks each year.

Panetta also went on several tangents, mentioning the Mexican drug cartels, which have killed 15,000 people, and the rising power of Brazil and India.

He told us that “we do not have to choose between law and security,” but “at the same time, we cannot be free unless we are secure.”

Panetta said the CIA’s budget has “tripled” since 9/11, which was cause for concern. He said such growth and unchecked expenditures “frankly scared the hell out of” him. (Prior to becoming Director, Panetta spent years on the House Budget Committee trying to balance the federal budget.)

Panetta has reduced the CIA’s reliance on outside contractors (I believe he said the CIA has reduced its reliance on contractors by around "20%," but I couldn't quite make out the specific context, and I'm sure there are many different kinds of contractors, so the 20% number may not be very helpful to anyone).

Panetta has made knowledge of a foreign language a requirement to advance within the CIA. His goal is to “be diverse,” and he wants to increase the CIA’s overall diversity from 23% overall to 30%.

Panetta said the CIA’s basic goal is “convincing people to risk their lives to give us information–that is what it is all about.” If we can’t protect them [the assets], he said, no one will want to work with us (later, he criticized WikiLeaks because some of the documents released contained names).

Panetta also said the President of the United States signs off on all covert operations, and the CIA's decisions are also reviewed by the Attorney General as well as overseen by Congress [see Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]. He went out of his way to say that the CIA keeps the President and Congress apprised of all operations.

He said that over half of the CIA’s workforce was hired post-9/11.

During the short Q&A session, Panetta criticized the media, saying its quality has declined because of soundbites and increased competition (this is where he made the comment about the general media not wanting to be “outfoxed”).

Panetta said the CIA had no excuse for not having oversight over [outside] contractors. He also said that certain security details were outsourced because certain agencies don't have designated security personnel. (I think he mentioned protection for certain Afghan politicians and State Department personnel, but don't quote me on this.)

Panetta lamented the state of modern politics, indicating that the goal ought to be consensus, but now politicians care more about surviving in office. Panetta said we can “govern by leadership or [by] crisis,” and right now, we are governing by crisis.

As I left the speech, I realized I had listened to a series of bromides. For example, Panetta left out the CIA’s role in extraordinary renditions. While Panetta said we should not look backwards to the Bush administration’s mistakes, he also didn’t say anything about how the CIA sought to avoid similar debacles. My own personal experience regarding FOIA requests was markedly different with the CIA than it was with the FBI–even though both were providing me information pursuant to the exact same federal law.

At the end of the day, Mr. Panetta is just one individual, just like President Obama is just one individual. My feeling is that Americans keep looking for one person to change things, but our form of government is anti-royalty and therefore one person’s power–though vast–is still limited. We need to move away from a "single individual" mentality and try to elect people who are comfortable delegating power and who will create changes from the bottom up. If this decade is any indication, it appears that one person can make a difference on the negative side, but not so much on the positive side.

Bonus: Audio of Speech.

Bonus: from Robert Scheer's They Know Everything about You (2015):

John Yoo's Greatest Hits

John Yoo told George W. Bush that he did not need Congressional approval to deploy troops or wage war, and that in some cases, Bush could interpret the definition of "torture" however he liked:

1. "The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11." [Emphasis added.]

2. "I do not think that the president is constitutionally required to get legislative authorization for launching military hostilities."

3. "I argue that the president has the sole authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions on behalf of the United States, rather than the courts or Congress."

CIA Engaged in Torture

The Economist has an interesting article on the CIA's role in torture. See here. The CIA used pistols and power-drills to threaten detainees. One detainee was told that "interrogators would sexually abuse his female relatives in front of him."

Leave it to a British magazine to report on American war crimes. Where are the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on the topic of CIA-sponsored torture?

History Will See this as One of America's Best Speeches

Senator Richard "Dick" Durbin (D-IL): FLOOR STATEMENT: Treatment of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about whether to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This debate misses the point. It is not a question of whether detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them according to the law or not does not depend on their address. It depends on our policy as a nation. How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not writing on a blank slate. We have entered into treaties over the years, saying this is how we will treat wartime detainees. The United States has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars. We have held ourselves to be a civilized country, willing to play by the rules, even in time of war. Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to set aside these treaties and create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners. Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration accountable for its failure to follow the law of the land when it comes to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and detainees. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked for hearings on this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a hearing on wartime detention policies tomorrow. I thank him for taking this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing to hold this administration accountable as well. It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this point. Many people who read history remember, as World War II began with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in fear after being attacked decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for fear they would be traitors and turn on the United States. We did that. Thousands of lives were changed. Thousands of businesses destroyed. Thousands of people, good American citizens, who happened to be of Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals. It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to admit that these people should never have been imprisoned. It was a shameful period in American history and one that very few, if any, try to defend today. I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq. We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war. We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have engaged. The law was clear, but some of the President's top advisers questioned whether we should follow it or whether we should write new standards. Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the President the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on terrorism. Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously to Alberto Gonzales' conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell argued that we could effectively fight the war on terrorism and still follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions would not limit our ability to question the detainees or hold them even indefinitely. He pointed out that under Geneva Conventions, members of al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered prisoners of war. There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The Geneva Conventions do not give POW status to terrorists. In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting aside the Geneva Conventions "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice... and undermine the protections of the law of war for our own troops... It will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain." When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary Colin Powell was prophetic. Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell's wise counsel, and instead accepted Alberto Gonzales' recommendation, issuing a memo setting aside the Geneva Conventions and concluding that we needed "new thinking in the law of war." After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the administration unilaterally created a new detention policy. They claim the right to seize anyone, including even American citizens, anywhere in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be. For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to indefinitely detain an elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but actually is a front that finances terrorism. They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal rights -- no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the Government has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even if they claim they were being tortured or executed. This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured during wartime. The official commentary on the convention states: "Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law." That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush administration when Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended otherwise. U.S. military lawyers called this detention system "a legal black hole." The Red Cross concluded, "U.S. authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law." Using their new detention policy, the administration has detained thousands of individuals in secret detention centers all around the world, some of them unknown to Members of Congress. While it is the most well-known, Guantanamo Bay is only one of them. Most have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, but some people who never raised arms against us have been taken prisoner far from the battlefield. Who are the Guantanamo detainees? Back in 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld described them as "the hardest of the hard core." However, the administration has since released many of them, and it has now become clear that Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion was not completely true. Military sources, according to the media, indicate that many detainees have no connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban and were sent to Guantanamo over the objections of intelligence personnel who recommended their release. One military officer said: "We're basically condemning these guys to a long-term imprisonment. If they weren't terrorists before, they certainly could be now." Last year, in two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's detention policy. The Court held that the detainees' claims that they were detained for over two years without charge and without access to counsel "unquestionably describe custody in violation of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States." The Court also held that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant must be told the basis for his detention and have a fair opportunity to challenge the Government's claims. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority: "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." You would think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? But yet, this administration, in this war, has viewed it much differently. I had hoped the Supreme Court decision would change the administration policy. Unfortunately, the administration has resisted complying with the Supreme Court's decision. The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their detention in court, but it still claims that once they get to court, they have no legal rights. In other words, the administration believes a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside. A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to comply with the Supreme Court's rulings. The court concluded that the detainees do have legal rights, and the administration's policies "deprive the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for their detention and deny them a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration." The administration also established a new interrogation policy that allows cruel and inhuman interrogation techniques. Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners. Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was "a form of torture." The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners. Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using "torture techniques." That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners. With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty obligations and secretly created new rules for detention and interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to review these rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the laws, and the court's job to judge whether they are constitutional. This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and judge. Our founding father were warned us about the dangers of the Executive Branch violating the separation of powers during wartime. James Madison wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming legislative powers, but the courts have reined them back in. During the Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel strike, issued an Executive order to seize and operate the Nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that the seizure was an unconstitutional infringement on the Congress's lawmaking power. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said: "The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make the laws which the President is to execute ... The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good times and bad." To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our country was founded. This Administration's detention and interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism. Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good friend and a man I served with in the House of Representatives, is a unique individual. He is one of the most cheerful people you would ever want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he was an Air Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6 1/2 years in a Vietnamese prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote: From my 6 1/2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival....This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us....We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime. Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more difficult to win the support of people around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism is not a popularity contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit young terrorists. Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration. Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these values. That's why the 9/11 Commission recommended: "We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors." What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different? We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in the international community in the process. When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor. If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in. The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts it as the law of the land, a commitment which we have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American. During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war. Let me read what that Court said: The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism. Mr. President, those words still ring true today. The Constitution is a law for this administration, equally in war and in peace. If the Constitution could withstand the Civil War, when our nation was literally divided against itself, surely it will withstand the war on terrorism. I yield the floor.

My Facebook Debate on Torture

Here is an ongoing debate about torture I'm having on Facebook. Tom is from Dallas, Texas, the state that elected George W. Bush several times. Sean has an advanced physics degree and works for a government lab. I don't know Evan.

Sean: Mr. Obama claims the enhanced interrogation techniques are a "recruitment tool that Al Qaeda . . . used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians." However, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the African Embassy bombings, the Cole, and 9/11 all happened before George W. Bush waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, or Abd al-Rahim Al Hashiri.

Evan: What an amazing perspective. So, you're trying to say that chronology matters when discussing these issues? Hmmm.... Bold. Very bold.

Me: The fact that some terrorists were anti-American years before 9/11 does not preclude the idea that our inhumane conduct towards prisoners increased the size and the intensity of terrorist threats. Look at it this way:

1. I've hated apples since 2001.
2. Yesterday, an apple truck dumped applesauce all over my lawn, causing me to pay 100 dollars to clean it up.
3. Now, I hate apples even more, and thanks to the apple company's negligence, it's easier for my neighbors to see why I hate apples, and also harder for pro-apple people to defend their product.

Under your theory, you would argue the apple company's negligence had no impact whatsoever on sentiment, credibility, and the safety of the next apple truck. Common sense tells us otherwise. And you're not seriously arguing that Abu Ghraib had no impact whatsoever on anti-Americanism and the terrorists' ability to influence more recruits, are you?

Evan: I would ask you, what did you do to Apple farmers to get the truck dumped all over your lawn? Did you, you know, go kill an apple farmer's whole family? Burn down his house? If you did neither, than your analogy falls apart. If you did either, or something similarly horrific, either your neighbors will see why it happened or are likely to also share your hatred and support your horrific acts.

I mean... seriously, neither 9/11 nor any of the actions and policies taken against Muslim extremists were accidents. But, one was first. And, actually, saying 9/11 was first is not even correct, as pointed by Sean in the original comment.

These extremists are not rational, either. So, using standard analogies on them is really fruitless as well. It just doesn't hold up. Next thing I bet we hear is the people who went after the financial funding of the terrorist orgs will be prosecuted, because the terrorists have kids too and those kids are hungry and the UN doesn't want kids being hungry.

Tom: Suppose you know the apples are coming for your lawn again. You have a senior apple in custody at a time when apple chatter is similar to the apple chatter that preceded the last major lawn event. You have reason to believe the senior apple has information that will save lawns. Shouldn't you squeeze that information out of the senior apple, if it is the best you can get and it will save lawns?

Me: Some radicals think they have plenty of support for a "blowback" theory--the overthrow of the Shah, support for Afghanistan fighters during the Cold War, "bribe" money to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, etc.--but I wasn't referring to a "blowback" theory. Anyone can point to an event at a certain point in time and use it to further his or her agenda. Intelligent people look beyond chronology to determine whether an action or response makes sense.

Torture (squeezing the apple) has not been shown to produce viable information. The FBI has already said this (see Ali Soufan). Thus, if you are pro-"squeezing the apple," you're going against the current U.S. administration, the FBI, and the U.N.--in other words, you're on the fringe, b/c credible people with more information than you are telling you torture doesn't work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

Me: Oops, meant overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq, not the Shah (see "Operation Ajax"). Anyway, on a separate note, check out the story of Iran Air Flight 655. Neither example is necessarily relevant to 9/11, b/c the 9/11 attacks were caused mainly by Saudi/German residents.

http://www.history.com/content/militaryblunders/iran-air-shot-down

Tom: Thanks for pointing out what intelligent people do and think. It is beyond consideration that anyone who disagrees with you might also be intelligent. Please pass the word that anyone who plans to think a thought should pass it by you before wrapping themselves in the mantle of intellect. Thank you, great one. Please continue to protect us from ourselves.

Sean: I don't believe for one moment that even a single Al Qaeda recruit ever decided on news of waterboarding at Guantanamo to pack his bags and head for the nearest training camp. They have a preexisting proclivity to hate us. They despise the United States for our culture and envy us for our power. The United States is a constant reproach to them: We are rich to their poor, strong to their weak, vigorous to their idle, can-do to their sit-and-wait. If we were weak, we would not be hated. If we were poor, we would not be hated.

Furthermore, this notion that the enhanced interrogation techniques applied to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, or Abd al-Rahim Al Hashiri didn't produce actionable intelligence and foil plots to kill Americans is a shibboleth of the left.

Did anyone else notice the Mr. Obama failed to rebut Mr. Cheney's point about what the enhanced interrogations yielded? All indications are that they were spectacularly successful.

Now that he has declassified and released details of the enhanced interrogations themselves, Mr. Obama should declassify and release the results of those same interrogations so we can all judge for ourselves whether or not they are worthwhile.

Tom: Furthermore, assuming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times (as erroneously and repeatedly reported; there were up to 183 'pours' that occurred in about 20 sessions) I have a hard time finding a problem with it. If the first instance was the only fruitful one, and the rest were for sport, he was still a planner of the 9/11 attacks. I don't care if he was gang raped by giraffes 183 times. Don't try to mess up my cities.

Evan: The 'aggressive interrogation is not proven to get accurate information' is a tough pill to swallow. Interrogation is, really, an art, not a protocol. It is an extremely personal and emotional task, something that is difficult to actually study. And, when you mix in the counterintelligence that Bin Laden's followers have been trained to deploy, and it gets very murky. Show me a sample group for that study that matches up well to the Jihadists that we're up against. I'm going to guess that the 'aggressive interrogation doesn't work' data comes from po-dunk cops that went overboard. Our guys trying to get info to save our country from Jihad are so far beyond your everyday cop.

Also, remember, there are journalists who have volunteered to be waterboarded. They probably saw video of it and figured "wow... that's mean, but I could handle it"... you don't see journalists volunteering to have their eyes poked out or legs broken, repeatedly. Waterboarding is different.

Me: A couple of quick points--first, chronology itself is not meaningful without studying the actual details of the events themselves. For example, if I kicked you ten years ago, it may have nothing or everything to do with whether you kick me fifteen years later. More information is necessary to determine the relevance, if any, of the events, especially when reviewing events that occurred years apart. [i.e.,] Details of events themselves are necessary to determine the relevance of the dates of the events. This statement seems so clear, it is surprising anyone even tried to refute it. Tom, I notice you attacked me personally on the issue of chronology and didn't address the actual points I made regarding the actual issue--and no else did, either. Tom, I make no comment regarding your intelligence--your own failure to address the actual content of my statement speaks for itself.

Let's move on to Evan and Sean. First, I agree with Sean that the American people should be able to review the results of the interrogations at some point, hopefully soon. But Sean, your next statement--"All indications are that they were spectacularly successful"--is based on speculation. No one here knows whether the interrogations were successful or unsuccessful because we don't have evidence. We do know, however, that an FBI agent and our administration have told us torture does not yield good information, and the administration has access to the interrogation results. I also notice that no one commented on the NY Times article I linked to.

Evan, you make an excellent point; however, other countries have used torture against terrorists for years--just look at Egypt, Syria, and Israel. These countries haven't published/disclosed results of their interrogations. Without evidence, we cannot speculate. There is a reason speculation is inadmissible in a U.S. court of law. I agree that interrogation is an inexact science. But what we've done--waterboarding, dogs, insects, stripping, etc.--seems designed more to humiliate than to get information. That makes no sense to me. I want good information, and most interrogation experts agree torture doesn't work. Threatening torture against a weak, disconnected individual might produce some information--but there are miles between a threat and the actual torture itself. Here's a good article on interrogation--note the absence of waterboarding, insects, etc:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden

There is a diff btw torture and coercion. Where do we draw the line?

Sean: I'm pretty sure the line is drawn between what Syria, Iran, Saddam's Iraq and Egypt do and what we do. I think that's one way to tell the difference between torture and intense interrogation.

Tom: It was not a personal attack to simply note your arrogance. I didn't comment on chronology, as you seem to be arguing a specific point that is both simplistic and inconsistent with the original point of the status. Chronology is important. No claim was made that nothing else was important. Therefore, strenuous arguments about how chronology is not the only thing to consider are largely irrelevant. Consequently, my disregard was mistaken for the absence of a meaningful response.

Evan: I say +1 with Tom... And, about the FBI agent and the administration. The FBI is always straightforward, and the Administration, this administration, is obviously straightforward on everything. That's why the whole administration spent the day covering the disaster that is Biden's mouth... Yeah, that administration. I think there is proof that the... Read More interrogations were successful in the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11, even though we've been 'provoking' people to do just that with our 'horrible foreign policy' (I use quotes because I believe provoking is actually preventing, and 'horrible foreign policy' is actually a strong foreign policy) Once again, the chronology seems to add up.

Me: The American people have voted against Bush and the very policies you support. I am just sad it took eight years and an economic collapse to get there. At the end of the day, we are all Americans, and I think most Americans can at least agree that the last eight years have been torture :-) While I cannot understand people who advocate torture/waterboarding, I am quite pleased we are able to have a civil discussion that may, in time, cause us to broaden our horizons.

Update: the debate continues, and now it's reached 61 comments. I will include the most recent snippets:

Me: The next time an American soldier gets captured and tortured by foreign enemies, I will contact all three of you and ask you to write an apology to the families of the Americans. You ideology will hurt Americans. If I ever contact you, don't shirk away--man up and apologize for indirectly hurting Americans and for directly harming America's reputation, which has served us so well from Eisenhower until Clinton. Traitors don't know they're traitors. No traitor ever does. That's why it's important to analyze one's beliefs and evaluate whether they will harm the nation, its civilians, and its soldiers. Over 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq post-9/11, fighting in a country that had no connection to 9/11. We fought a war based on what we now know were speculative threats. We engaged in torture in Abu Ghraib as a result of Americans like you playing around with the definition of torture. Americans are now less safe, if only b/c the economic consequences of war have harmed us.

Evan: You are calling me a traitor? Unbelievable. You seem to have a very narrow definition of diversity. It's beginning to be very offensive.

Me: I did not call you a traitor. Read my comment carefully. It's a general comment, not a specific one, and it could conceivably apply to myself. There's at least one thing, however, that definitely separates us--the next time an American soldier gets tortured, waterboarded, beaten, and deprived of sleep, I will have the moral ground to protest--you won't. That doesn't mean you're a traitor--it does mean your beliefs indirectly endanger Americans by blurring the line between acceptable conduct and unacceptable conduct. Your refusal to condemn torture and its inevitable slippery slope during times of war means you have no standing to protest or condemn anyone when abuse of American soldiers occurs. You are consciously trading off America's right to condemn torture of its soldiers in exchange for having a pro-torture policy that *might* produce relevant information. I refuse to make that trade-off when no reliable study has shown that torture produces reliable results.

Torture Still up for Debate, and a Bill Maher Joke

From "The Issue of Torture is not about its Efficacy":

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2009/04/the-issue-of-torture-is-not-about-its-efficacy.html

I never really imagined in all of my 49 years on the planet that there would seriously be a debate in the United States about whether it is alright to torture a prisoner. I don't think of myself as naive or unjaded, but it just always seemed pretty clear to me that American political culture would not sanction the overt use of torture as a legitimate means of intelligence gathering or war fighting.

The NYT's Frank Rich talks about torture here. And he makes so much sense, you will ask yourself, "Where was he six years ago?"

Ah, the days of innocence.

Here's something funny to balance out the bitter. Bill Maher mentioned California's beauty pageant contestant, who may have lost the crown because of her opposition to gay marriage. (She said she favored "opposite marriage.") Here's what Bill Maher had to say:

She's extremely Christian, kind of hot, and she's dumb...It looks like the Republicans have a new Vice Presidential candidate.

I think the GOP might be considering it. Sigh. Where's a Barry Goldwater when you need one?

Fed Judge Rebukes U.S. in Guantanamo Case

Just when you think it can't get worse, it does. A federal judge has accused the United States government of withholding evidence in a Guantanamo Bay case:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123127182296258253.html

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he was forced to delay ruling on whether to free Aymen Saeed Batarfi because as many as 10 documents of classified information were withheld from the court until recently.

So here's what we know: the U.S. sought to deny Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights; it specifically placed them in Guantanamo, outside of the U.S., to bolster its argument that the detainees didn't deserve Constitutional rights; it detained them on secret evidence for years; and now it's hiding evidence?

It appears even after Justice Antonin Kennedy, attorney Seth Waxman, and Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Constitution is gasping for its life.

Here is an interesting documentary on Guantanamo:

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/

There is also an excellent, must-read article in Transcript, a UC Berkeley School of Law journal (Fall-Winter 2008, Vol. 40, No. 2). I can't find an online link, but it includes an article by Jon Jefferson titled, "Life After Gitmo," and an interview with Moazzam Begg.

Update on January 14, 2009: the Washington Post reports that some Guantanamo Bay detainees were tortured:

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

Americans should oppose torture because it's in our own self-interest. The next time an opposing country captures one of our military personnel, our moral authority to object to his/her torture may not exist.

Update: excellent WSJ Op-Ed (12/22/08) by Thomas Wilner.