Although President Obama opposes the prosecution of CIA operatives who carried out the most controversial interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration, Obama suggested today that he had not ruled out action against Justice Department officials who authorized the tactics.
The president, who banned and then publicized interrogation tactics employed by the CIA in the early years of the Bush administration, has maintained that he is more interested in looking forward than dwelling on past actions.
This attack on our intelligence capabilities is a sham and a lie. Pandora’s box is open.
[blockquote]The president, who banned and then publicized interrogation tactics employed by the CIA in the early years of the Bush administration, has maintained that he is more interested in looking forward than dwelling on past actions.[/blockquote]
He publicized the interrogation tactics against the advice of his current and four prior CIA directors. He is playing politics with this and is going to dwell on past actions. If this country were in immanent danger don’t you think anything necessary would be done to avert an act of terror?
[blockquote]don’t you think anything necessary would be done to avert an act of terror?[/blockquote]
Do you mean “would” or “should”?
If you mean should we do anything necessary to avert an act of terror: in a word, no. In a few more words: the ends do not justify the means.
We should do everything legal and moral to avert acts of terror. Torturing suspects – no matter what they know or what crimes they have committed – is neither legal nor moral. I voted for Bush twice, but if I had known about these “controversial interrogations” at the time I’m pretty sure I would have voted differently.
#3. Scott K,
If a terrorist has planted a small atomic bomb somewhere in a major U.S. City and the CIA has captured the individual but is constrained to your idea of legal or moral interrogation techniques then that means you are willing to take the chance of sacrificing 100,000 innocent lives. To me that is immoral and foolish.
If you would torture someone to save 100,000 lives, would you do it to save 1,000? What about 10? Would you torture someone to save one life?
You are free to disagree, but as I said above: the end does not justify the means. Torturing another human being is evil, and cannot be justified by the intention to have good come out of it. Any apparent good that does result is tainted by the immoral acts that led to it.
Put another way: I’d rather live in a country that valued due process and respect for the law at the risk of a terrorist attack, than one that maintained security through torture and illegal imprisonment and interrogations.
#5. Scott K,
[blockquote]You are free to disagree[/blockquote]
Thanks Scott, and I certainly do disagree.
Dick Cheney is calling on the administration to release the documents that show how the use of certain tactics actually prevented attacks on US soil. But for some reason, the administration seems reluctant to do so.
[blockquote]If you would torture someone to save 100,000 lives, would you do it to save 1,000? What about 10? Would you torture someone to save one life?[/blockquote]
Yes, yes and yes. And I think it’s frightening that anyone wouldn’t.
I don’t think the issue is whether one would torture someone to save X number of people. It’s whether waterboarding is a reasonable definition of “torture.” I’ve seen reasonable people on both sides of the debate. I just don’t know. What I do know is that it won’t take too many terrorist incidents that kill thousands of Americans for the American people to openly and explicitly endorse the use of tactics that are unequivocally torture. Maybe it’s best to bend so we don’t break.
Oh, and what I do know is Obama’s statement is worthy of any of scores of Latin American caudillos eager to not just replace the previous government, but to turn political differences into criminal acts. The march to Juan Peron’s Argentina continues apace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
A decent column about the effectiveness of torture.
But the real problem is a president willing to countenance the prosecution of a previous administration. Does he think he will go through 4 or 8 years and not make decisions for which a future administration will pursue him?
Like most inexperienced people, President Obama consistently overreaches. I hope he is wearing steel trousers.
#2 Dcn Dale says:
Whenever anyone throws around ideas like “anything necessary,” they are on very, very dangerous ground. Consider your example a few comments later:
Would you torture this individual to get the information out of him?
Would you shoot his child in front of him to get the information out of him?
Would you drop a bomb on his home town to get the information out of him?
Would you use our own nuclear weapons to turn his entire nation into ash to get the information out of him?
If not, then you’re not willing to do “anything necessary” to avert the act of terror. Nor should you be.
The thing to remember is that we’re supposed to be the good guys. That means that, sometimes, we have to fight with one hand tied in order to preserve our principles. There’s a cost to being the good guys, and that’s part of it. There are things we won’t do, and our enemies know it.
Now, reasonable people can argue about exactly where those limits ought to be. But there have to be limits, which is why we cannot go around tossing out phrases like “anything necessary.”
Re # 8
Alli B,
You wrote…
[blockquote] If you would torture someone to save 100,000 lives, would you do it to save 1,000? What about 10? Would you torture someone to save one life?
Yes, yes and yes. And I think it’s frightening that anyone wouldn’t. [/blockquote]
I find your comment frankly chilling. We are on a slippery slope here. Where does one stop with torture? I have no use for President Obama. But George Bush did more than play fast and loose with the rule of law. He fed it into a shredder.
Torture is barbaric and notoriously unreliable as a means of interrogation. Does the rule of law mean nothing? Have we become so frightened that we are willing to hand over to our government carte blanche to do what they with whom they will? Have we reached the point where even the most elemental rights accorded to those accused of the most barbarous crimes are now but scraps of paper?
If we have indeed reached that point then I respectfully submit that we have already lost the war, for we have become our enemies.
Christ is risen!
John
Nothing that I have read about methods used by our intell services
raises to the level of torture.
Ok. That should be rises to the level. It is early, not enought coffee and last night I failed to heed George Herbert’s advise to”take not the third glass”
This is no new issue. We have faced it over the years. What appears necessary in the short term, can knock the heart out of one’s moral case. The same issues keep arising, whether it was in India culminating in the Amritsar Massacre, in Vietnam with the Me Lai event or in the tactics we did use in Northern Ireland. When it all comes out, as it always does, we have to face ourselves and ask whether this is really what we as a country are all about. It is not because we are soft that we observe the Geneva Convention, quite apart from what Christians should do.
It was probably Amritsar that turned both Indian and British public opinion and made independence inevitable; people [even the most pro-British] lost heart. Now torture however defined is not the same as a massacre like Amritsar, but similar results occur. We in Britain are searching ourselves about what it turned out was our government’s co-operation with US rendition flights – it all comes out eventually.
In our earnestness to do the most effective thing in the short term we can lose sight of the long term objective and what we as a society are about. My view fwiw.
#12. Ross,
Well, you certainly set up a straw man there didn’t you. I was referring to the individual and nothing beyond that. You’re comment about [blockquote]Would you use our own nuclear weapons to turn his entire nation into ash to get the information out of him?[/blockquote] is patently absurd. How about destroying the entire earth too? you forgot that one.
There is a lot of after the fact moral outrage about the methods used to get information from terrorists. If an event similar to 911 happens again, let’s see if the interrogation standards hold for the Obama team.
Some posters who would offer moral outrage about how terrorists are interrogated would not hesitate to shoot and kill an intruder in their home to protect their family if they believed they were in eminent danger. To me, taking the life of another person to defend your family is a more extreme measure than the interrogation methods used by Bush. When we talk about the actions of a civilized nation the question will always be, “What is the appropriate level of response”? The same is true with self defense.
#13, I find it chilling that people this it’s okay for someone to die so that someone else doesn’t go through discomfort. That is exactly what this argument boils down to.
As I said before, we can all agree that “torture” is bad. Where we disagree is on what constitutes torture itself.
No, this isn’t about discomfort, its about *torture* and the value of human life, even sinful human life. It isn’t about efficiency–efficiency and effectiveness aren’t our gods. Our God came in the flesh and endured torture for the benefit of sinners. We are called to value the good enough not to set the good aside for efficiency.
If efficacy is a factor, it is in forming the link to justify violence (not accepted by all Christians, of course, but the basis for Just War theory–pursuing the greater good, perhaps). In an interrogation situation, you have no assurances that torture will work, no assurances that the information obtained by torture will actually save lives–only a presumption. This is unlike shooting the pirate with a gun to the captain’s back ready to kill. The victim of torture does not pose the same imminent threat (he’s captured and defenseless), and the use of force in this case has only theoretical impact in saving lives. The violence of the interrogator has no direct and clear effect on the saving of lives–only the agency of cruelty. Torture goes beyond pressure and into sadistic devaluing of a person’s life. As Christians, this is a serious sin.
JPII was right to note the pernicious impact of valuing “efficiency” and the eroding value of human life. The leniency toward torture is an example of this trend.
Part of this discussion relates to those who have been critical of President Bush from the beginning. They believe he stole the presidency, he was not prepared for 911, he did not respond properly to the events that took place. they also believe justice will be furthered if members of his administration are prosecuted. Some would like to see Bush prosecuted. For some, there is a visceral hate for Bush. That is a part of what is fueling the moral outrage. He had to deal with a terrorist attack on American soil, an experience that had never happened before. (Hawaii was not a state when Pearl Harbor was attacked). I hope an event like this never happens again but if it does, I suspect errors will be made and responses will be questioned. Hopefully, we will have learned something from our responses to 911.
Given some of the comments on this thread about the acceptability of torture, we ought to apologize to the families of those Germans and Japanese whom we put on trial after WWII and, after conviction, executed for torture. If it’s okay for us to do it, for reasons and in circumstances that we feel to be compelling, and upon authorization by duly constituted authorities, that it was surely a travesty to execute them for doing things that we would be willing to endorse for ourselves.
#17 Dcn Dale says:
My point was that you evidently do have limits, which means that you are not, in fact, prepared to do “anything necessary” to prevent an act of terrorism. And that is a good thing, although you and I obviously disagree about where those limits ought to be. Perhaps you meant “anything necessary” to be a simple rhetorical flourish, hyperbole meaning “maybe this, or that, but obviously not that.”
Well, rhetoric is important. It is one of the ways that the world judges us, for instance; and the world needs to know that we choose to constrain ourselves within certain bounds. That is, to reiterate a previous point, what makes us the good guys.
#21 Dcn Dale says:
Oklahoma City.
#24. Ross,
[blockquote]Oklahoma City[/blockquote] Point taken.
By the way, was anyone disciplined for what happened to Richard A. Jewell following his false arrest for the Atlanta bombing and trial by media? My point here is the response by the government is frequently overreaching, (Iraq) inadequate (Katrina) inappropriate (Pork) or non existent (Darfur). There are potential moral consequences to all actions or inaction. We confess that we have failed to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. That is were we all become culpable. Those who continue to hold hatred toward Bush need to make peace about this. It took me awhile to make peace about LBJ. It was not an accident that God had me pray for Bill Clinton for eight years either.
The president needs to stop trying to please Jimmy Carter whose policies encouraged 9/11. The idea of prosecuting DOJ lawyers is foolish. This is an attempt to keep running against Bush for as long as he can.
Two of my friends from Latin America – one an attorney, the other a CPA (and refugee from Cuba in his 80s) were telling me this morning this is the exactly what dictators in banana republics do to their political enemies. I think they are right.
When Obama is replaced by a GOP presidency, should Tim Geitner et al. be prosecuted for the way they’ve mishandled the economy and budget?
#21, 24 and 25 refer to the Oklahoma City attack as a terrorist attack – while I agree (and would also point to the first World Trade Center bombing as well), it should be noted that the current administration does not see these as terrorist attacks, but “man-made catastrophes.” The efforts to forestall these (if there is one) or to apprehend the suspects (more likely) is now called “overseas contingency operations.â€
Personally, I think this is an unknowing capitulation in the area of asymmetric warfare – in particular the enabling of “lawfare” – the strategy of using law as a substitute to achieve military objectives.
One agent remarked something like so: I’ll do what it takes to save my country, legal or illegal. The law won’t hamstring me, in any case. The law simply doesn’t matter, and I’ll pay the consequences afterwards.
Just because torture isn’t legal, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
[blockquote]Given some of the comments on this thread about the acceptability of torture, we ought to apologize to the families of those Germans and Japanese whom we put on trial after WWII and, after conviction, executed for torture. If it’s okay for us to do it, for reasons and in circumstances that we feel to be compelling, and upon authorization by duly constituted authorities, that it was surely a travesty to execute them for doing things that we would be willing to endorse for ourselves. [/blockquote]
Are you suggesting that we have tried and executed people for doing the same interrogation techniques that we have been doing since 9-11? If that’s not what you’re saying, then your comment is a non sequitur.
Are you all aware that many of our own soldiers are trained by being waterboarded and that a massive attack on Los Angeles was prevented through intel obtained from this technique? Anyone who says we were wrong in waterboarding must be willing to say out loud that the deaths that would have occurred without the information gleaned from waterboarding is an acceptable consequence. You can’t have it both ways.
Careful #30, be clear about agency and responsibility. If someone else wants to commit an evil, You are not responsible if they carry it out. You are no less responsible for their evil if you yourself commit an evil in the hopes that their evil might not occur. This is different from a good that you might do in order to actually prevent their evil.
Part of the slippery slope is that if good comes from an evil act (say, a cure for a terminal disease that can be found by killing someone else), then we are less inclined to think the act evil.
The better discussion is whether a particular act is evil (rather than what good might come from any act, whether good or evil). There are some that might say waterboarding is acceptable on its own merits (and point to its use in resistance training for our military as an example). But look how quickly we jump to blanket and normative approval of torture based upon the discussion of waterboarding, and its efficiency in producing results. There is grave danger here.
#29, John Wilkins is correct – see this [url=http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244]passage from the book by Richard Clarke[/url]:
[blockquote]… ‘extraordinary renditions’, were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, ‘That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.’ [/blockquote]
#31.Tom Pumphrey (2),
[blockquote]Part of the slippery slope is that if good comes from an evil act (say, a cure for a terminal disease that can be found by killing someone else), then we are less inclined to think the act evil.[/blockquote] So Tom, what should be done with the research data that was collected in Hitler’s concentration camps?
#32. William P. Sulik,
I would usually be one of Al Gore’s strongest critics but I believe he is a combat veteran of Viet Nam. I think it would give him a certain perspective on things that a civilian might not understand or resonate with.
[blockquote]But look how quickly we jump to blanket and normative approval of torture based upon the discussion of waterboarding, and its efficiency in producing results. There is grave danger here.[/blockquote]
Totally agree about the danger, but I disagree with your point about quickly jumping to something worse. I don’t see anyone doing that. And if you have a chance to prevent an attack and don’t, you certainly DO bear some responsibility. Those who decry our techniques and seek to get them abolished cannot wash their hands of the consequences.
[blockquote]I would usually be one of Al Gore’s strongest critics but I believe he is a combat veteran of Viet Nam. I think it would give him a certain perspective on things that a civilian might not understand or resonate with.[/blockquote]
Gore didn’t see any combat in Nam…he was journalist.
Alli: to be clear, I think torture is at the bottom of the slipery slope, not along the sides. And some comments on this thread jump to approving torture itself. I hear what you’re driving at about preventing an attack, and I’m willing to accept your use of “responsibility” if you put it in quotes, but this applies when one really can clearly prevent the attack in the act. Only then do we get to the question of the valid use of force. And the use of force is then still done only against those who pose the threat, so as to eliminate that threat. Torture to potentially get information that could potentially be helpful in the effort to potentially prevent someone else’s attack (especially in light of data that shows torture generally ineffective) makes the connection so tenuous… That’s a high bar for such an inhuman and dehumanizing act to clear.
#33: That example was exactly what I was thinking: we risk validating the barbaric methods of the Nazis by citing the good results that *might* be derived. This is part of the argument against the use of human embryos in research. To answer your question, I would tread very carefully indeed so as not to condone Nazi methods. Theoretically, if those who conquered such war criminals used the data, this would be different from participating in the crimes. But there is a moral hazzard here not to be swept under the rug…I would want to think more before a final answer. Your thoughts?
#36. Tom Pumphrey (2),
It’s a tough one. If you toss the research, then the victims’ deaths are somehow even more tragic. If you use the data it somehow justifies what horrific things were done. I really have no answer for this one but don’t see a lot of difference between the above scenario and using human embryos in research. In both cases the objects of the research were/have been made out to be less than human first.
My goodness, it really is so easy for you folks to be critical of our intell operations. Dr Witt: We did not bayonet our prisoners as did the Japs. We did not use them as sujects of chemical/biological tests
as did the Japs. We did not machine them down as did the Germans at Malmedy. You comparisons do not hold. People-these Islamist want to destroy us and all we stand for. What would you have us do? Say please don’t do that.
President Obama opposes the prosecution of CIA operatives who carried out the most controversial interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration …
Good decision
…Obama [has] not ruled out action against Justice Department officials who authorized the tactics.
An equally good decision
This question is for Scott K, Tom Pumphrey (2) and Dr. William Tighe.
Given your 20/20 hindsight, would anyone of you folks advocate prosecuting President Harry S. Truman for war crimes because he gave the OK to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
#40 (Dcn Dale): There’s a lot that goes into a war crimes charge, and I doubt that it would apply in this case. But one could ask whether these bombings were justifiable under the Christian concepts of Just War. There’s a lot that says yes they were justified, but the one factor that would trouble the analysis would be the bombings of civilian populations, rather than military installations. Again, efficacy only comes into play as one factor among others (“probability of success”). 20/20 hindsight can color our evaluation here (the fire bombing of Tokyo, for instance, did not stop the war, even though the devastation was comparable, if I remember correctly).
The evil of the WWII Japanese military is indisputable. Our human tendency, however, is to throw off self-restraint based on the degree of another’s evil. Jesus does not call us to be silent in the face of evil, but he does call us to a dramatically different response than is our gut reaction–love our enemies, etc. The task is then to both love our enemies and fight their evil at the same time. This is a complicated and messy task on the ground (and almost always imperfect), but one worth pursuing.
Here’s a summary I did on Christian responses to war (pacifism & Just War): http://www.stmarkshb.org/documents/Christian.responses.to.war.pdf
#41. Tom Pumphrey (2),
Interesting piece. This caught my intention. [blockquote]Principle of Right Intention: to protect innocent human life and never for revenge[/blockquote]
Based on your criteria, “Desert Storm” could qualify as a Just War, however, it seems like most of our wars were not just wars based on the above principle.
“Remember the Maine!”
“Remember the Alamo!”
“Remember the Lusitania!”
“Remember Pearl Harbor!”
“Remember Fort Sumter!”
Dale: To the extent that these were motivated by revenge, yes. Of course, “remember ____” may not so much be a call for revenge as a call for prevention–the Lusitania is a good example: it showed that we were not impervious to German aggression. Sort of saying “let’s not forget how these folks are killing people.” This works for Taliban-Afghanistan vis-a-vis 9/11.