An exhaustive, five-year Senate investigation of the CIA’s secret interrogations of terrorism suspects renders a strikingly bleak verdict of a program launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, describing levels of brutality, dishonesty and seemingly arbitrary violence that at times brought even agency employees to moments of anguish.
The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee delivers new allegations of cruelty in a program whose severe tactics have been abundantly documented, revealing that agency medical personnel voiced alarm that waterboarding methods had deteriorated to “a series of near drownings” [among many other things]…
This has been big news over on this side of the pond. It makes for sober reading. When you read of a prisoner dying of hypothermia stripped naked and shackled to the wall (some reports say floor); or when you read of (I apologise for this, but there is no way round it) ‘rectal feeding’ which is really a kind of sexual assault – then there is no doubt that this was horribly abusive behavior. This was directly contrary, and a betrayal of, the principles by which the United States seeks to live. A betrayal of its traditions. But there is one thing that we have to hold on to and remind ourselves of again and again: In the end there was accountability. I know that many people will be angry with Senator Diane Feinstein, but I think she has been courageous. The truth was brought out. The U. S. system did not fail in the end. Bad practices were brought out into the daylight so that lessons could be learned. The accounts are quite detailed and a testimony to the rule of law and constitutional government. Yes, I know that some may regard that last sentence as ironic given the abuse of human rights that occurred. But the fact remains, in the end, the truth came out and is being looked at in the harsh light of day. I simply say: how many other nations in the world are capable of such honesty? There are others, but they are not many.
Let’s hope the attention to Constitutional niceties is equally observed when the summary of the Obama administration is written.
I have not read the report but I have no doubt abuses did happen. That is part of war and the shadows of war in the intelligence end of things. To maintain some perspective, let’s also keep in mind what the same type of perpetrators are doing in the Middle East today. ISIS is not a group of Boy Scouts on a weekend outing.
Well, it was pretty obvious, when you think about it. Suspects were rendered to countries outside the US to avoid the rule of law which obtains there, and the only reason for doing that is because the intention was to treat people in ways which would be illegal in the US. It is clear Abu Graib was not a one-off.
It is the same issue which arose in Argentina’s dirty war, or it has to be said in Northern Ireland, although as far as I am aware we did not descend to the level of bestiality we are reading about.
How far do you go in support of your aims, and at what point do you become indistinguishable from those you are seeking to contain and ‘render’ harmless? At what point do the means fail to be justified by the ends?
As Father Tee points out, the one certainty is that the truth will always at some point come out. Over here we are certainly interested in the extent to which our government has been cooperating in this abuse. We had an issue a while back about the extent to which the British government was cooperating with US rendition flights.
Whatever the motivations, the Congress has done all of us a favour, and as Father Tee points out, shown that the system does continue to work and to serve the Constitution it was designed to protect under the rule of law.
#1 and #3–Anybody remember pictures of people jumping 80 stories to their deaths to keep from being burned alive? Or as #2 points out, Christians being crucified and beheaded currently.
#4 Torture is always justified by those who engage in it. The same for indefinite detention, execution without trial, etc. Lots of people think the Bill of Rights is a waste of time. Be honest if that’s your opinion. Say that the US should be no different than any banana republic if you believe the end justifies the means (leaving aside, for the moment, that no end was actually obtained, as it virtually never is in these circumstances). Lobby to make torture legal.
But since we currently DO have laws making torture illegal, and since those laws were blatantly violated, we need to prosecute the violators.
The best comment I’ve read today comes from the comments section of the NY Times:
[blockquote] This is the kind of story that serves as fodder to the post modernists: there is no truth. Every report is “exaggerated,” and “full of untruths.” Who knows what the truth is. Political ideology is everything, objective truth is nothing
There is only one effective response to this spew of denial — prosecution. The denials prove only that it is necessary, or they will do it again.[/blockquote]
A quote from Heinrich Himmler in 1943 that I have thought about many, many times. There is no limit to the ability of human beings to justify what they do, and even take pride in it. That is why only total transparency and the rule of law saves us from savagery.
[blockquote] I want to also mention a very difficult subject … It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public…I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. “The Jewish people is being exterminated.” Every Party member will tell you, “perfectly clear, it’s part of our plans, we’re eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter  But none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And … to have seen this through and, with the exception of human weakness, to have remained decent…is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned. Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators. We would probably be at the same stage as 16/17, if the Jews still resided in the body of the German people.
We have taken away the riches that they had, and … we have taken nothing from them for ourselves. A few, who have offended against this, will be judged in accordance with an order, that I gave at the beginning: he who takes even one Mark of this is a dead man. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us. We however do not have the right to enrich ourselves with even one fur, with one Mark, with one cigarette, with one watch, with anything. That we do not have. Because we don’t want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated. But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character. [/blockquote]
So, there we have it: the moral equivalency between the genocidal Hitler regime and a country [America] defending itself.
Perhaps it would be beneficial for a full context on this, if next Sept 11 as family members read the names of the dead from the 9-11 attack; they could indicate their opinion on whether the CIA should have stood down from its job.
Nope. It’s not the moral equivalency between the genocidal Hitler regime and a country defending itself. Note even close.
It’s an example of:
1) how EVERYONE who does evil does so believing that ‘thereby good may come.” Even the greatest murderers. Therefore — if you know that something is evil — do not be seduced into doing it by the thought that “thereby good may come” even if your commanding officer, the President of the United States, the Pope, or anyone else is whispering it in your ear. If Himmler could righteously justify what he did (and he could) then ANY act whatsoever can be justified.
and 2) “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” When things are done in secret, when they’re hidden, when they’re deliberately removed from the reach of the law, even if they don’t start out evil, they are almost certainly going to send up that way, because evil grows in darkness, just like mildew grows away from sunlight.
RE: “Torture is always justified by those who engage in it.”
No! You’re kidding me!! [i]People offer reasons for doing things that they do?[/i] That’s just outrageous!
RE: “Lots of people think the Bill of Rights is a waste of time.”
No — merely irrelevant to non US citizens.
RE: “leaving aside, for the moment, that no end was actually obtained . . . ”
. . . As people, oddly, always hasten to make sure everybody believes and accepts even while informing us all that torture is intrinsically immoral [i]no matter if something is accomplished in the way of self-defense[/i].
Of course, most of the people trumpeting that torture is useless rather loudly and insistently [while asserting that it does not matter either way, in which case why mention it] know full well that that question is entirely open and not resolved in the least, much less by the political report released yesterday [it’s being a political report released for political ends doesn’t mean its primary theses are false or true]. This article nicely points out the openness of the question of the [i]usefulness[/i] of torture:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/truth-about-interrogation_819024.html?page=1
It’s interesting to read the comments on this thread, at any rate. They’re divided among [b]1)[/b] people who assert that they believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way, and [b]2)[/b] people who assert that they do not believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.
I don’t see the two sides ever coming together or even dialoguing. The former are full of public moral outrage and the latter are indifferent to the public moral outrage.
In the course of the fun discussions I’ve had over the past couple of days I’ve found that those who believe torture is intrinsically immoral at all times may be further subdivided into three groups.
[b]1)[/b] Those who are able to conceive as something beyond “delusional fantasy” the notion that they themselves could possibly be in a situation where a loved one was threatened and where torture would be valuable in helping to protect or defend that loved one and are capable of honestly asserting that torture is intrinsically immoral and they would not indulge in such behavior, [b]2)[/b] those who are able to conceive as something beyond “delusional fantasy” the notion that they themselves could possibly be in a situation where a loved one was threatened and where torture would be valuable in helping to protect or defend that loved one and are capable of honestly asserting that torture is intrinsically immoral but that they [i]would[/i] indulge in such behavior, and [b]3)[/b] those who are unable to conceive of the notion that they themselves could possibly be in a situation where a loved one was threatened and where torture would be valuable in helping to protect or defend that loved one and are therefore incapable of chanting anything more than “torture is intrinsically immoral and how dare anybody bring up the possibility that that is a false statement.” That latter group is simply unable to engage because of their own delusions about being entirely protected and thus never having to face the moral question of self-defense and protection of others.
[blockquote] It’s interesting to read the comments on this thread, at any rate. They’re divided among 1) people who assert that they believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way, and 2) people who assert that they do not believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. [/blockquote]
Total red herring considering that this was NOT “at all times and in every way” but instead exactly in a specific time, in a specific way, and for a specific supposed objective. Just like every actual (as opposed to imaginary) example is. So the question is — do you think this torture was immoral or not? The imaginary questions are just a way of avoiding an answer.
In terms of your imaginary question, however, I’m curious as to in which subdivision you would put Jesus.
RE: “Total red herring . . . ”
Nope. Some on this thread — you, for example — believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. Others do not.
And that is the crux of the matter. Everything else is so much hand-waving and rhetorical posturing.
[blockquote] RE: “Torture is always justified by those who engage in it.â€
No! You’re kidding me!! People offer reasons for doing things that they do? That’s just outrageous! [/blockquote]
Well, it was an eye-opener to me in my 20’s. I actually assumed that most genocidal murders, or child molesters, or torturers, or others who engaged in unspeakable evil, deep down inside knew that they were committing evil. But it turns out that virtually none of them do. Jerry Sandusky, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, Heinrich Himmler, will ALL tell you exactly why they had no choice but to do what they did. So when I had that insight, I realized that I couldn’t rely on my own sense of self-righteousness to guide my conduct, because it would lead me astray.
So I also categorize people into two groups: 1) those who believe in objective, external truth, 2) those who believe that truth is relative.
[blockquote] Nope. Some on this thread—you, for example—believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. Others do not.
And that is the crux of the matter. Everything else is so much hand-waving and rhetorical posturing. [/blockquote]
That’s the crux of the debate you’d *like* to have, because it’s so much easier to engage in, but it’s not the crux of the debate on whether or not the actions of the CIA were immoral and illegal. It’s actually an enormous red herring distractor so they everyone gets sucked into some abstract debate about “what if these kidnappers were holding your child for ransom and you knew for sure that they were going to kill him in 24 hours and then you captured one of the kidnappers and then he refused to tell you where they were holding your child and then….blah blah blah” and so then everyone stops thinking and talking about what actually happened.
Au contraire — those who believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way wish to suck people into debates about specific instances so that they can avoid and obscure the reality that they are opposed to torture at all times and in every way and that they believe there is absolutely no justification for it ever or in any way.
Which is what you’re doing, for instance.
You’d rather hide your foundational belief system and not let people know that anything at all that they said is automatically negated by your foundational belief. Conversation about torture is thus pointless and irrelevant between the two groups; one side [i]doesn’t wish to discuss their core foundational belief that is guiding all of their beliefs about specific practices.[/i]
It’s kind of like, for instance, those who believe abortion is a lovely choice for women not wishing to discuss their intrinsic belief that killing children is justified. They’d rather focus on the “hard cases” while hiding their core belief about abortion which is that women should be allowed to kill babies, period, end of story.
The interesting question is . . . why is it that those opposed to torture in all cases and at all times don’t wish to discuss that issue and instead wish to focus on the “hard cases” and distract from the core discussion. [i]Why do they not wish to discuss their core foundational belief that is guiding all of their beliefs about specific practices?[/i]
I think it’s because many of them are uneasily aware that they’re not really able to consistently defend the foundational thesis that is guiding their moral outrage about specific practices.
Strange that you should bring up abortion, because I would think that would undercut your argument completely.
Story comes out about the guy in Philadelphia cutting up live-born fetuses. Everyone is outraged is and is discussing how horrible this case is and what a monster this doctor is. Pro-abortion supporter distracts everyone by pointing out some theoretical case in which in might be necessary to abort a (let’s make it early term) fetus in order to save a mother’s life. I mean — that mother could be your sister, or your daughter or YOU. And what would you do then? So really, this isn’t about the doctor in Philadelphia at all. It’s really a debate between those who absolutely refuse to consider that there could ever, ever be any circumstances under which the termination of any pregnancy in any circumstances could be justified, and those who are way more honest in their thinking and realize that there could be such circumstances.
Except that it isn’t about any such debate at all. It’s exactly about the murderer in Philadelphia. And the culture of abortion that drives people to use his services. And this is outrage about the torturers hired by and supervised by the CIA. As it should be.
Of course, another reason not to get so exercised by this report is that at the end of the day, it is just one part of a big political game……..
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/12/09/Hume-Senate-Intel-Report-Like-Rolling-Stone-UVA-Story
Which means, there is another story that needs to come out, one where the narrative is not controlled by the folks who issued the first story.
Of course by the time that happens, many will have moved on to another target of outrage…….maybe another “Ferguson”.
And I have been reminded the report was breathlessly released at the same time that new “non-person” [according to the left] Jonathon Gruber was testifying to Congress. And of course the report had to be hurried out because in a few more days the Democrats who put it all together will be out of power.
RE: “It’s exactly about the murderer in Philadelphia. And the culture of abortion that drives people to use his services.”
I disagree. The Philadelphia case was about what abortion doctors will do for money — and that’s why the media didn’t want to cover it. They didn’t like the *larger issue* being revealed by the smaller.
In the case of those who do not oppose torture in all places and at all times, they’re perfectly happy to talk about the larger issue — they welcome it, in fact, and are unashamed and vocal — unlike the libs in Philadelphia and our national media [but I repeat myself].
It’s many of those [but not all] who oppose torture as an intrinsic moral evil in all places and at all times who are nervous about talking about that foundational belief — because they recognize they can’t defend it, their principle isn’t able to be consistently held, yet they’d like to exhibit public moral outrage about specific and particular instances.
RE: “And this is outrage about the torturers hired by and supervised by the CIA.”
Yes — because they believe torture is an intrinsic moral evil and oppose it at all times and in every way. And once those who do not grant such a principle recognize that . . . well there’s shrugs all round at that point.
RE: “And of course the report had to be hurried out because in a few more days the Democrats who put it all together will be out of power.”
I’m with you Father Warren — this is one last pram-tantrum from people seeking revenge for their coming loss of power, and I expect most politically aware people understand that, while either being happy for the tantrum or not, depending on their foundational principles.
This report and its release offers aid and comfort to our country’s enemies and will cause no end of horrible consequences to many who are defending America — and the Democrats are comfortable with that, understandably.
But . . . regardless of the pram-tantrum motive, or its consequences, at the end of the day Americans either oppose torture [or think they do — see subcategories above] as an intrinsic moral evil or they don’t.
Those who do will engage in lots of public moral outrage and those who don’t will shrug, while acknowledging the motives and consequences for the report.
The good news is that the report itself will rapidly disappear in populist consciousness just for the reasons you mention, and because there’s that huge group of people that don’t believe torture is an intrinsic moral evil.
Brit Hume has it right (link in #16). This report was produced by the majority only, without any participation from the minority, and without the committee ever having interviewed any of the officials in charge at the time, and one should add, by a majority which was informed of these events at the time and many of whom voted in favor of bills and resolutions in support.
CIA officials, in various public statements, say that useful information was generated from the the very few detainees who were subjected to what this report calls “torture” and that plots putting many lives at risk were disrupted as a result.
I cannot agree that these actions rendered us “indistinguishable” from [i]jihadis[/i] who rape and cut off heads, among other behaviors which are far beyond what was done to the man who cut off Daniel Pearl’s head.
On that larger note, the distressing thing about those opposed to torture as an intrinsic moral evil in all times and in every way and their group’s majority’s unwillingness to engage on their foundational belief is that those who are *not* opposed to torture as an intrinsic moral evil in our society — and there are many of those — don’t get to have this belief appropriately and rationally challenged by the other side.
It’s devastating to the culture to not be able to have that matter-of-fact real exchange about a significant issue — the place of specific kinds of violence in attempted self-defense, limits if any, types allowed if any, or not, and why, etc, etc — I don’t know that our country has another issue about which one side refuses to discuss or engage concerning [i]their own foundational belief[/i] with the other.
I’m guessing that David Keller, Father Warren, and I could have such an in-depth discussion, disagree vociferously about numerous matters, and depart far more informed and thoughtful about the issue than before. But most of those on the “torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way” side are not willing to defend *that core belief*.
And there we are.
I agree with your first and last paragraphs, Katherine.
But . . . RE: [blockquote]”CIA officials, in various public statements, say that useful information was generated from the the very few detainees who were subjected to what this report calls “torture†and that plots putting many lives at risk were disrupted as a result.”[/blockquote] Remember that it does not matter to the publicly morally outraged that useful information [[i]though of course there was none[/i]] was generated and that plots were disrupted [[i]none at all I assure everyone[/i]] because their foundational principle — what they believe that they believe — is that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.
I just saw former Vice President Cheney on television emphatically denying that the specific procedures approved by the Justice Department were “torture.” Remember that the more lurid accusations in this report were never checked with any of the officials in charge of the program. This is, as Hume says, a one-sided report in which allegations were never checked and double-checked. There may well have been incidents which went beyond the approved procedures. Who was responsible and on whose authority is not explored.
Catholic Mum, thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned and godly posts.
I am yet to see an argument against them on this thread which is credible, either intellectually or morally.
I agree that the US government needs to show the moral courage to prosecute the people responsible for these activities.
And it should throw in a prosecution for Incompetence – quite apart from the moral issues, they failed abysmally in their role of obtaining useful intelligence. Torture is easy for certain people, but it is not effective.
During many years of military service I spoke from time to time with intelligence officers in Britain and Australia, including a number who specialised in interrogation. Every one of them considered the use of torture to be evidence of incompetence – it rarely extracts any information which is valuable or reliable, and a skilled interrogator can get better results using legal techniques.
RE: “but it is not effective”
Asserts MichaelA confidently. ; > )
RE: “I spoke from time to time with intelligence officers in Britain and Australia . . . ”
Ah. Then you won’t mind reading this article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/truth-about-interrogation_819024.html?page=1
Or this one:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644#livefyre-comment
Because you’re willing to listen to and learn from experienced intelligence officers. ; > )
But regardless, it does not matter, remember, about the effectiveness of torture for those who believe it to be intrinsically immoral? So it’s fascinating that the larger part of your comment is all about how torture does not produce useful information nor help disrupt plots. Because . . . torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.
RE: “I am yet to see an argument against them on this thread . . . ”
Because Catholic Mom has presented no argument at all. She’s made easily addressed shallow assertions because she is unwilling to defend her primary foundational belief about torture.
Katherine — looks as if there’s going to be a whole lot more resistance to the approved story and thesis than I had thought. It’s being demolished by a full range of individuals from all circles.
I’m getting the popcorn to watch this.
[blockquote]I cannot agree that these actions rendered us “indistinguishable†from jihadis who rape and cut off heads, among other behaviors which are far beyond what was done to the man who cut off Daniel Pearl’s head. [/blockquote]
It did not render us indistinguishable from jihadis who rape and cut off heads. It rendered us indistinguishable from people who sign treaties, violate them, and lie about it. It rendered us people who do not debate openly when/how/if torture is ever justified but people who allow a very tiny, select group of nameless people in power to determine the reasons, place, methods, and victims.
Sarah doesn’t trust the government to run a federal healthcare program but apparently trusts them to torture at will, with no rules and no accountability. Because, you know, they’re only non-US citizens so it’s not like it could ever happen here.
Cheney’s denials:
[blockquote] Former Vice President Dick Cheney says a declassified Senate report on the controversial post-9/11 CIA interrogation program is “full of crap.”
“I think it is a terrible report, deeply flawed,” Cheney said on Fox News, his first televised interview since the report’s release. “It’s a classic example of where politicians get together and throw professionals under the bus.”
Cheney said he had not read the entire 6,000-page classified document, drafted by Democrats and their staffs on the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the 500-page declassified and redacted executive summary. But he unequivocally said its findings were flawed and an affront to members of the CIA.
“The notion that the agency was operating on a rogue basis was just a flat out lie,” Cheney said.
He insisted the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were all legally justified and inconsistent with “torture,” though he conceded that the practice of “rectal rehydration” mentioned in the report, “was not one of the authorized or approved techniques.”
Cheney said he also rejects the allegation that his boss, President George W. Bush, was kept in the dark. “He was in fact an integral part of the program. He had to approve it before we moved forward with it,“ Cheney said. “He knew everything he needed to know and wanted to know about the program.”
While the brutal and graphic descriptions of the techniques have dominated headlines and been labeled “torture” by President Obama, Cheney says critics have lost sight of the context.
The former vice president said he’s particularly bothered by criticism over the treatment of Khalid Sheilk Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. “He is in our possession, we know he’s the architect [of the attacks], what are we supposed to do? Kiss him on both cheeks?“ Cheney said. “How nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3,000 people on 9/11?â€
[/blockquote]
Summary: Report is full of crap because 1) torturers were not “rogue” they were under orders; 2) Bush knew all about it; 3) anything that we issue a memo saying is not torture is not torture because we issued a memo saying it isn’t torture; 4) it’s OK to torture evil people because I mean, what else *would* you do with them? And we have an infallible way of determining guilt without trial. We just torture other people until they tell us the names of the guilty.
Yep, Sarah. Off we go.
Two wrongs, if they are wrongs, don’t make a right. Nonetheless I am interested in how some view our new policy, which is to kill terrorists and those around them with drones on the direct authorization of the President. It is said that Bill Clinton had a shot at sending a missile to take out bin Laden in the late 90s, but didn’t do so because innocents might have been killed as well. We do not now observe such reservations in many cases. Even a liberal president in the post-9/11 world has had to face the ugliness out there.
#23 MichaelA says:
MichaelA is correct
Moreover, it is not entirely clear what the methods used were intended to achieve.
I also find the kickback going on now interesting, if unconvincing.
Also interesting is to see that both the United States [1994] and the United Kingdom [1988] have ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment made in New York in 1984 and which which obtained sufficient signatories to come into force in 1987. In addition it looks as though many of the countries in which ‘black sites’ were located such as Poland, Romania and Afghanistan are also signatories.
The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured. Torture is defined in Part 1 of the Convention:
It is hard to see how the United States is not in willful breach, with or without the knowledge and lawful sanction of its President and Congress. The same probably applies to other countries who have been compliant with the US.
“It is hard to see how the United States is not in willful breach”
It is not surprising that the drumbeat against “the US” on this CIA issue sounds so similar to the drumbeat against “cops” that we have relentlessly heard from Ferguson, MO. Because, there are similar agents perpetrating the drumbeats in both cases.
Perpetrators who despise all that is “America” and all that is “American”.
Perpetrators who never shine the spotlight on the instigators of actions; only on those who have to respond to the instigation.
In Ferguson, sadly a thug took his thuggishness one step too far and tried to physically assault a police officer out doing his job. And the thug sadly died for his actions.
On 9-11, over 3,000 Americans died at the hands of radical Islamic jihadists, on our own soil; and instead of mildly taking it again as we had so often in the 1990’s we struck back. And in the heat of war we may have used methods almost as barbarian as those who attacked us. Yet it is only we who are roundly condemned.
In the vitriol, I am surprised we have not yet heard about what an awful nation we are because we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan after Pearl Harbor [which we remembered this week if anyone recalls].
I have no pride in what the CIA has possibly done. I have no pride that we used atomic weapons on other people. I have no pride in drones flying around the Middle East [and God knows where else] killing perps along with innocents. I don’t like to see police killing citizens.
But it is not a perfect world. Never has been, never will be until the second coming of our Savior……..something which we contemplate in this Season of Advent that is upon us.
And from an article by [ACNA] Bishop Bill Atwood,
“Last week, four young Iraqi boys all under fifteen were captured by ISIS. They were told that they would be killed unless they renounced their faith in Jesus and promised to follow The Prophet. They refused, saying “No, we love Jesus.†As a result, all four were beheaded. Such things used to seem far away from a different land and a different age, but now, the truth is that those same pressures are coming against us. It could be any place and any time that we are challenged.” [https://americananglican.org/current-news/global-view-death/]
Over the last few years, we have seen numerous beheadings here in America…….all, or almost all, perpetrated by a person with ties to radical Islamic jihadists. I personally think our current President is way too sympathetic toward the Muslim world. He is incapable of saying there actually are such things as Islamic terrorists or that there really is a war on terror. I hope he has not been able to totally emasculate the CIA and the military in their duties to protect the American people.
RE: “It rendered us people who do not debate openly when/how/if torture is ever justified . . . ”
Richly richly ironic from a woman who refuses to discuss her own foundational principle that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. People are more than willing to debate and discuss that foundational principle — it’s just that oddly, those who believe it scuttle away in terror when it’s brought up. I think we’re all beginning to recognize why that is.
RE: “Sarah doesn’t trust the government to run a federal healthcare program but apparently trusts them to torture at will . . . ”
It is not a question of whom do I trust. It is a question of is it intrinsically immoral. If it is, nobody is allowed to do it — not the State, not agents of the State, not Sarah and not Catholic Mom.
Of course, the universal cry of those unwilling-to-defend-their-own-foundational-view is “they were incompetent at torture and it accomplished absolutely nothing” — and with that in mind I am more than willing to agree that the US government will be as competent at running the healthcare industry as Catholici Mom deems they were at producing good effect from torture.
Excellent comments from Cheney — I’m proud of his forthrightness. He obviously believes the opposite of Catholic Mom about the intrinsic immorality of torture — and is quite clear about it [though he’s unwilling to concede Catholic Mom’s definitions of torture].
So we have, yet again, two different groups of people on either side of a chasm — and one of those groups utterly refuses to address their foundational principle, while the other both is willing to address *the details* [as Catholic Mom claimed others wouldn’t] *and* the principle.
Glad that Cheney takes responsibility, along with Bush. No throwing under the bus, no denials — unlike, of course, the Democrats who knew good and well what was being done and approved it themselves. But now, of course, it is best to wheel out the moral shrieking and huffing. Heh.
I actually [gasp] went back to read this story and realized this is part of it……..”The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee ”
That struck me as odd, since we know via Brit Hume at Fox that this is a “democrat” report, not a “committee” report.
Sure enough, it appears that there is a Republican minority report that was issued this week [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/10/cia-interrogations-report-where-is-katie-couric-getting-her-news/].
But, have we heard anything about that Republican report in the news? Especially since that report makes the claim that the interrogations were effective?
I’m with Sarah, roll out the popcorn, this just gets better and better.
RE: “MichaelA is correct . . . ”
Yes, I have no doubt that he “spoke from time to time with intelligence officers in Britain and Australia.”
How odd that he accepts *their* word, but not, of course, the word of other intelligence officers who don’t agree with MichaelA’s foundational premise that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.
RE: “It is hard to see how the United States is not in willful breach . . . ”
Actually it’s pretty easy to those who care about words and definitions of words. The US authorities [and by that I don’t mean people like Obama or Feinstein who don’t even have the convictions of a Catholic Mom but are merely feeling understandably vengeful] would argue — if they bothered to argue — “our methods did not inflict ‘severe pain or suffering'” and then they would wheel out their beliefs about what methods *do* constitute “severe pain or suffering” and stack them up next to the CIA’s methods.
Capt. Warren,
I have supported the police in Ferguson in every way. I suspect that about 10% of the comments supporting the police on the NY Times web site are mine.
I believe that the atomic bombing of Japan was a military action that was within the legitimate scope of war, although there are arguments both for and against its necessity. I used to lean “against” but am leaning more towards “necessary” the more I study WWII. Honest people can disagree.
We did not “strike back” after 911. We attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 911. The 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and had training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I have found that one of the greatest tests of a person’s intellectual integrity (and one which determines which people I listen to and which people I don’t) is whether or not a person is willing to acknowledge that people that they support (or they themselves) have done something very wrong. And I don’t mean “a bad decision” I mean “wicked” to use one of Sarah’s words. But when people simply put their hands over their ears and say “if you tell me something bad that America [or rather, that part of America that I support] has done, you are un-American” (or, “if you tell me something bad the Catholic Church has done then you are anti-Catholic” or any other such thing) then I understand that they are not going to try to process the truth. They are going to try to puzzle out how the truth is not really true. And attacking the messenger is typically way #1.
Sarah,
There is an old legal saying “when you have the facts, pound on the facts, and when you have the law, pound on the law, but if you have neither the facts nor the law [on your side] pound on the table.”
I have found over the years that when you wish to discuss neither the facts nor the law, you pound on “foundational worldviews.” This is simply a tar baby that I will no longer swing at.
RE: “I also find the kickback going on now interesting, if unconvincing.”
Yes, Pageantmaster — unconvincing to those who believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.
But for the majority of Americans — who don’t grant that principle — it will be convincing.
RE: “And from an article by [ACNA] Bishop Bill Atwood . . . ”
Keep in mind, though, Father Warren, that none of those things matter to those who believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. Nor does it matter if the torture effectively allowed self-defense or defense of country, because torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way. Even if it were thoroughly demonstrated that torture defended Americans [and it can’t be, because only the right sort of “intelligence officers” will be listened to], that does not negate the foundational principle.
RE: “Nonetheless I am interested in how some view our new policy, which is to kill terrorists and those around them with drones on the direct authorization of the President.”
Yes Katherine — but most of those [not the pacifists or those who have renounced violence of all kinds, including from the State] who believe that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way distinguish between “violence that kills people in a war” and “violence that is torture.” They won’t explain why they do that, but they do.
Since I know that you watch and read these things — I was quite surprised at the force and variety of the repudiation and current demolition of [i]The Democrat Report on George W. Bush[/i]. At this point, I expect the approved story and theme will go rather along the path of the approved story and theme of the Michael Brown events. We’ll go from “the gentle giant was fleeing with his hands up and shot in the back” all the way to “he turned and charged at the police officer” — and then the other side will be left with what they believe anyway.
RE: “I have found over the years that when you wish to discuss neither the facts nor the law, you pound on “foundational worldviews.†This is simply a tar baby that I will no longer swing at.”
No Catholic Mom — you won’t defend your foundational principle because you know that you cannot do so successfully and your principle will be made to look ridiculous.
You are unable to defend it.
And yet, your inability to defend it will cause you not to question it or even refine it and sculpt it one bit.
That is fine.
Nice try. As it happens, you have no idea what my foundational principles are in this matter because I refuse to be deflected into a discussion of them. Because that is the major way that you avoid discussing what this thread is actually about.
Katherine — I’ve got a predictions question for you.
As [i]The Democrat Report on George W. Bush[/i] slowly melts down in the coming days — already severely dented in just 24 hours — how will the Dems respond?
I think they’ve got two options: [b]1)[/b] quietly slink away while talking about the importance of “the narrative” — just like the UVA fraternity fake-rape journalists are doing now or [b]2)[/b] double down and demand further action — so as they’re publicly embarrassed and exposed and because of that, they bluster louder and demand show-trials or something, even when they hadn’t planned on that a week earlier.
I think it’s going to be fascinating to watch the swinging back and forth between those two positions as they determine the best tack in the coming month.
RE: “As it happens, you have no idea what my foundational principles are in this matter . . . ”
Well of course I do, Catholic Mom. You’re a good Catholic, not to mention that you’ve demonstrated them right on this very thread.
No — all of us know what your foundational principle is regarding torture and that is precisely what this thread is about — and what all future threads on particular acts of torture will be about: is it intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way to enact torture. Some say “yes” and some say “no” — but the former don’t want to talk about that.
Further, I’m not trying to get you to discuss that principle at all — I’m well aware of how shaky you know it to be. You would be a fool to discuss that principle and then attempt to apply that principle to the particulars — and you are no fool. You must try, instead, to engage in all sorts of rhetorical hand-waving — one could just do a quick skim and list all the classic maneuvers in rhetoric by merely reading your comments — in order to avoid talking about What Catholic Mom Believes.
But, oddly, Catholic Mom has never, to my memory, [i]ever[/i] wished to avoid talking about a foundational principle before, not even where there were particulars to discuss. Only on this topic. ; > )
[blockquote] Only on this topic. [/blockquote]
No, actually only with you, for the reasons stated. It’s my New Year’s resolution and I’m starting early.
[blockquote]But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.[/blockquote]
Heh heh. A whole lot of other people who believe like Catholic Mom have had [i]the same sudden New Year’s Resolution[/i]. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/dianne-feinsteins-travesty-113486.html
Delicious observations of this now going on all over the country — that desire to try to obscure their foundational principle first, and then inability and unwillingness to defend it, once noted and pointed at, along with the resulting and slow meltdown of [i]The Democrat Report on George W. Bush[/i] with the latest news of *Democrats* pushing back on the report’s “special narrative” will now harden further the 70%+ citizens who do not believe torture to be intrinsically immoral. The Rolling Stone “narrative” damaged actual rape victims everywhere, and [i]The Democrat Report on George W. Bush[/i] will damage the possible addition of reasonable convictions against torture.
But I disagree with Lowry. I don’t think it’s a lack of moral conviction. It’s a lack of [i]ability[/i] for most of them.
Well . . . it’s been a fun thread, but nothing new appears to be likely to be said, so I’ll toddle away. Katherine if you get in and have some speculation on my predictions question I hope you’ll PM me.
Sarah, your inbox is full! I’m going for Door #1.
Things are coming out, drip, drip, drip and people are beginning to ask questions about what is missing from the Senate Report and why.
It isn’t a question that some people think torture is ok and some don’t in the US. Both the US Supreme Court and the Congress have said that it is wrong and for some time it appears the administration has finally agreed to observe this, in accordance with the Convention it signed. This is much as it is illegal over here, not to mention completely counter-productive, ineffective and ultimately when exposed, undermining of one’s moral case. That it would appear would have been obvious, if the advice of other agencies and allies was sought, instead of two so-called psychologists with no relevant experience, who managed to come up with a variant of the Chinese water torture and serious sexual assault as their interrogation methodology and were paid an extraordinary amount of money for it.
It is not because we are wimps in Britain, that we take the same line. We have the long experience to know what does and does not work, having been subject for years to IRA and now Islamic terrorism. I have lived with it too, having had buildings on three sides of me reduced to rubble, and friends and relatives narrowly avoiding being casualties.
It takes a lot when faced with these things not to adopt the standard of the terrorists as justification for similar methods, but ultimately if you do, as we well know, you end up making things much worse and lose the war, even though you may have won a battle in your own view. That has happened here, and we have pulled back after some questionable periods in Northern Ireland, some of which are still haunting us. It is sad seeing how terrorism has affected the US. If you adopt torture, it is sadly allowing the terrorists to undermine your own moral standing and hard-fought constitutional benefits. The terrorists see that as a victory, but restraint I know is hard in the face of such murder and provocation.
It is also particularly testing as Christians, when everything is pushing us to adopt the thinking and methods of the prince of this world.
“How odd that he accepts *their* word, but not, of course, the word of other intelligence officers who don’t agree with MichaelA’s foundational premise that torture is intrinsically immoral at all times and in every way.”
Sarah, I have to ask, do you understand the English language?
Or do you deliberately obfuscate because you do not have the integrity to confront the arguments of others?
Firstly, I said nothing at all about the moral beliefs of those intelligence officers about torture. Quite the opposite – I spoke of their belief about the effectiveness of torture.
Secondly, I do not have a foundational premise of the sort you describe, and you have no reason to believe that I do, except that it suits your argument to set up straw men.
“”As it happens, you have no idea what my foundational principles are in this matter because I refuse to be deflected into a discussion of them. Because that is the major way that you avoid discussing what this thread is actually about.”
Precisely.
This is a live issue over here.
Meanwhile problems continue