Will 3 Instances of CIA Waterboarding sink AG-nominee Mukasey?
[Guest post by DRJ]
Via the Instapundit, ABC reports that only three detainees – all members of al Qaeda – have been waterboarded by the CIA and no one has been waterboarded since 2003:
“For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.
Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.”
Waterboarding helped break Khalid Sheikh Mohammed so now we don’t use it at all? This is insanity.
Today’s reports indicate Senators Feinstein and Schumer will support AG-nominee Mukasey. I hope the remaining Senators get over their fear of water(boarding) and approve Mukasey’s nomination.
– DRJ
Kennedy will vote against Mukasey, because Ted supports waterboarding only for women riding in his car.
Comment by Steverino — 11/2/2007 @ 1:36 pm
Apparently, Schumer and Feinstein have announced their support. Frankly, this concerns me.
Comment by JD — 11/2/2007 @ 1:38 pm
We only need 1 democrat (assuming all the republicans vote in favor) to send his nomination to the full senate. According to the AP report, they expect he has 70 ‘yes’ votes in the full senate now.
Comment by Lord Nazh© — 11/2/2007 @ 1:50 pm
Is it such a far-fetched scenario that one day a jihadist terrorist or accomplice will have information about a suitcase A-bomb in a big city that waterboarding or another technique would elicit in a timely manner? I pity the left if that were to happen and it turned out the interrogator’s hands were tied because of Teddy and his clique.
Comment by Banjo — 11/2/2007 @ 1:54 pm
Banjo – Real world scenarios? Piffle. This whole thing was about portraying Republicans as torturers, and trying to turn public opinion against the Administration and the military.
Comment by JD — 11/2/2007 @ 2:01 pm
As I noted at Stubborn Facts, the Kennedy Democrats are, in essence, demanding that Mukasey commit to prosecuting the President and the CIA employees who conducted waterboarding, as a condition of his confirmation. “Torture” is illegal under U.S. law. If Mukasey says, under oath, that he believes waterboarding to be “torture,” then he is obligating himself to begin an investigation of the President, Vice President, and any CIA or other officials who authorized or participated in waterboarding under any circumstances, as soon as he is sworn in. If he were to answer their questions affirmatively, then the day after he is sworn in, Kennedy will be accusing him of lying to the committee, unless he does in fact start such an investigation.
Kudos to Schumer and Feinstein for doing the right thing.
Comment by PatHMV — 11/2/2007 @ 2:10 pm
Nice to see that there are still some Dems (Schumer and Feinstein) who are, at least some of the time, more interested in doing what’s right than what MoveOn tells them to do.
Comment by chaos — 11/2/2007 @ 2:23 pm
chaos, et al – After the way that Schumer has acted since they regained the Senate, I am not a big enough person to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by JD — 11/2/2007 @ 2:27 pm
If the Democrats really believe waterboarding is torture or if they just don’t like the practice, they can introduce legislation banning the practice. Of course they haven’t and they won’t.
As to Schumer, I am with JD. Along with Leahy, Biden, Kennedy, and Durbin he has been a bullying windbag since he became a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Comment by Stu707 — 11/2/2007 @ 2:53 pm
I have difficulty believing that Schumer has any interest in ‘doing the right thing’ as he has shown little interest in it in the past. Here he is stuck with the fact that he recommended Mukasey as the next AG.
Comment by SPQR — 11/2/2007 @ 3:08 pm
SPQR – That gives me even more concern. When someone nominated to a political office comes by way of a recommendation from one of the most vitriolic partisan liars in Congress, it should give one pause.
On the other hand, Schumer has never let little things like facts get in his way before. Why start now?
Comment by JD — 11/2/2007 @ 3:12 pm
The only thing more frustrating than our power-hungry, torturing, incompetent administration is the wussy, tentative, cover-your-ass Democratic congressional majority.
Comment by nosh — 11/2/2007 @ 4:30 pm
Those two are supporting him precisely because wb’ing hasn’t been used since 2003. Surely, Schumer and DiFi know this. Mukasey gets a free pass on it, because they know that with the new CIA director banning it, it doesn’t make all that much of a difference WHAT the AG thinks. Or at least it gives them cover.
Comment by Viktor — 11/2/2007 @ 5:29 pm
Yes, the question is not whether waterboard is torture. We all know that it is and that it is already illegal. The question is will the new Attorney General enforce the law impartially or act as a political toady. I guess you’re saying that he should be a toady because, otherwise, torturers may have to answer for the crimes they committed.
It’s disgusting that so many here are defending torture. Is DRJ defending torture with his paragraph “Waterboarding helped break Khalid Sheikh Mohammed so now we don’t use it at all? This is insanity.”? If so, I hope Patterico stops inviting him to be a guest here.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/3/2007 @ 7:57 am
Well, Ken, you have a morality-based viewpoint opposing waterboarding. My own morality-based viewpoint is that I don’t mind it being used against the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I’m just as certain that my morality is right as you are that yours is the unassailable Truth. If you’re not willing to engage in discussion and debate with people who don’t share your morality, I hope you will stop being a commenter here.
Comment by PatHMV — 11/3/2007 @ 10:16 am
Ken,
Surely, you can agree with me that killing is wrong? Please tell me you agree that killing is wrong.
Comment by Patterico — 11/3/2007 @ 10:29 am
I endorse Ken Hirsch’s viewpoint to this degree: I want to see our soldiers on a pedestal. In the battlefield putting their lives on the line for our lives and our way of life. Not in a dungeon abusing helpless prisoners. Leave that last to the freaks of the spook services and punish them when they do it except when strictly necessary to save innocent lives.
Comment by nk — 11/3/2007 @ 10:37 am
“Surely, you can agree with me that killing is wrong? Please tell me you agree that killing is wrong.”
I know I’m in moderation and no one will see this (except perhaps Patterico), but killing isn’t wrong. Murder is.
Killing is often necessary and often good. It depends on context.
Comment by Christoph — 11/3/2007 @ 10:40 am
Ken Hirsch,
Waterboarding isn’t physical torture. It is harsh and it has to be properly done, but I consider it a valid coercive tool to be used in extreme circumstances.
Comment by DRJ — 11/3/2007 @ 10:53 am
What’s that supposed to mean? That is doesn’t leave any lasting physical marks? Unless, of course, you actually do it a little too long and drown the subject, which happens sometimes. How about electrical shocks to the genitals? That’s even safer. Or is controlled drowning for some reason preferable to extreme pain.
All these distinctions are completely without legal justification, of course. Waterboarding was torture and a war crime when the U.S. prosecuted in 1947. It’s still torture today. You are an apologist for torturers.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/3/2007 @ 12:40 pm
Ken Hirsch,
I assume the 1947 case you refer to involves Yukio Asano. Here’s a summary of what he was convicted for doing:
Maybe water torture is the same as waterboarding – that’s not clear to me based on the available records – but Asano was convicted for doing more than that.
Is it possible for you to accept that reasonable people can differ on this subject? Apparently not since you’ve called me an apologist for torturers. Given that fact, I don’t see the point of discussing this with you further.
Comment by DRJ — 11/3/2007 @ 12:53 pm
Like when?
Comment by Pablo — 11/3/2007 @ 1:39 pm
At the other thread Ken Hirsch tells us:
Only about 1 in a million people is a terrorist. Unless you believe that you can identify terrorists with greater than 99.9999% accuracy, you are more likely to torture an innocent person than a terrorist. This is a literal statistical argument, not hyperbole.
One in a million, huh? So with 500-some million Muslims in the world, only about 500 of them are terrorists? We’ll have that pesky war won in no time, won’t we?
I thought the current talking points were supposed to be how the Bush Administration is creating thousands and thousands of terrorists through its policies, but I’m glad to hear that all of them can fit into a small high school gymnasium.
Are you still sure you are making a “literal statistical argument”?
Comment by JVW — 11/3/2007 @ 5:31 pm
Maybe that was a liberal statistical argument.
Comment by DRJ — 11/3/2007 @ 5:41 pm
Maybe that was a liberal statistical argument.
Yup, make it up as you go…whatever sounds good to make an argument.
Comment by Paul — 11/3/2007 @ 5:53 pm
Its quite a silly argument for several reasons.
Comment by SPQR — 11/3/2007 @ 5:54 pm
DRJ and others, the comments of some of you suggest that waterboarding is acceptable if you’re doing it to a really bad person. My question is who decides that the person is really bad, how would really bad be defined in the law, and what checks and balances are built into a system that would allow it. Could we use it against a suspected serial murderer of children being held in custody if he had kidnapped a child and there was a possibility finding a the child still alive?
Comment by JayHub — 11/3/2007 @ 6:39 pm
Constitutionally, you can’t force an American citizen to talk. This is not a law enforcement maneuver.
However, if the child in question is mine and I’ve got access to the son of a bitch, all bets are off.
Comment by Pablo — 11/3/2007 @ 6:48 pm
JayHub,
In my opinion, waterboarding is an acceptable intelligence-gathering tool. I do not view it as a law enforcement tool.
Comment by DRJ — 11/3/2007 @ 6:49 pm
I agree that at present it is not Constitutional to use such techniques in law enforcement with a citizen. But this is theoretical discussion. What if Khalid Sheik Muhammad had been a citizen. That’s certainly the problem many European countries have and that a lot of people fear we may have in the future. In the terrorist situation, the threat would be the same whether he was a citizen or not. Won’t we need to protect ourselves equally in both circumstances? And if we can do that, can’t we expand it to other logical situations in the US, with citizens?
Comment by JayHub — 11/3/2007 @ 6:54 pm
Could we use it against a suspected serial murderer of children being held in custody if he had kidnapped a child and there was a possibility finding a the child still alive?
Yes. Justification and necessity are defenses to a crime.
Comment by nk — 11/3/2007 @ 6:57 pm
Not without repealing the 5th Amendment.
Comment by Pablo — 11/3/2007 @ 7:08 pm
JayHub,
Sorry – I misunderstood your point. In theory, I would restrict the use of this technique to military and civilian intelligence-gatherers. It’s a better, more clear dividing line and it would be easier to ensure its use is restricted to national security purposes.
Edit: Thus, I don’t care if it’s used on citizens or non-citizens. I would handle this by defining who uses it and for what purpose. However, this is my theoretical answer and I’m not saying this is what the law is.
Comment by DRJ — 11/3/2007 @ 7:11 pm
And you’ll notice that we haven’t heard about Jose Padilla or Yaser Hamdi being waterboarded.
Comment by Pablo — 11/3/2007 @ 7:11 pm
The Fifth Amendment forbids compelling an accused to be a witness against himself. It does not forbid compelling him to tell you where he buried a little girl alive (actual case in Florida). And pulling out his fingernails with pliers until she is found … I think it’s a Fourth Amendment issue and the scag could bring a Bivens action. A jury might give him all of six cents.
Comment by nk — 11/3/2007 @ 7:22 pm
That is self incriminating. It would be entirely unconstitutional for the cops to do that. You do not lose the right to remain silent simply because law enforcement really, really, really would rather you didn’t. But they could just drop him off at my house and keep a phone handy.
Now where did I put those needlenose vise grips?
Comment by Pablo — 11/3/2007 @ 7:28 pm
Is it possible? I don’t think so. Waterboarding is designed to make people suffer and fear imminent death. That’s what torture is! I don’t know who you think is buying the argument that it’s not torture. On what planet is the controlled drowning of a person not torture?
Those here who are open about being pro-torture may appall me, but at least they are honest. Trying to convince me that waterboarding is not torture means that you are pro-torture and that you are either dishonest or so delusional that everything you say should be presumed false.
As for the other specious arguments people have made here (or on other recent posts):
Yes, some service members are subjected to waterboarding … when they’re being taught how to resist torture! That is, yes, they are tortured!
As to the fact that Congress hasn’t specifically outlawed waterboarding–Good God, does Congress have to outlaw each of the hundreds, nay, thousands of ways that people can be tortured. As far as I can tell, this was just a gambit to retroactively provide immunity to those who tortured. “It wasn’t illegal at the time I did it.”
If controlled drowning is not torture, how about controlled suffocation or controlled hypothermia? Those, too, are used and have led to deaths.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/3/2007 @ 10:22 pm
Ken – “As far as I can tell, this was just a gambit” You got that right. Pure political theater once again from the democrat controlled do-nothing Congress. Get the AG Nominee to say something is illegal and use it to impeach Bush, even though the record of individual Dem members on statements about torture is mixed. Very transparent and cheap tactic.
“Trying to convince me that waterboarding is not torture means that you are pro-torture and that you are either dishonest or so delusional that everything you say should be presumed false.”
Trying to convince me that waterboarding is torture could mean that your are a hate-America first, surrender monkey appeaser and that you are either dishonest or so delusional that everything you say should be presumed false, but I am not willing to make the same broad brush conclusions about people as you are so that I cannot be sure about that conclusion. It’s fun to play your insult game though.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2007 @ 10:43 pm
Torture, when it’s over, doesn’t leave you in exactly as good condition as you were when it started.
And we don’t torture reporters. Yet here’s one being waterboarded, on camera.
If you find that to be an unspeakable moral transgression, you’re simply hysterical.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 3:35 am
Ken, if you don’t like our answers, why are you hanging around? Go over to HuffPo where they think torture is listening to a conservative speak on a college campus.
Comment by Paul — 11/4/2007 @ 5:00 am
I’ve been reading Patterico for almost four years. Until yesterday I was not aware that it was a pro-torture site. I’ve never been a Democrat before, but if it’s the only party that opposes torture, I’d join it in a second.
Do you really want the GOP to be “The Party of Torturers”. Lincoln would be so proud.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 5:35 am
Hmmm….
Party of Abortionists.
Party of Perjurers.
Party of Adulterers.
Party of Killers.
Party of Racists.
Party of Torturers.
Hyperbole is fun, ain’t it, Ken? You’ll make a great Democrat.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 5:47 am
So if there are no permanent scars, that’s not torture? That’s never been the definition. I’ve also seen reporters getting tasered. Does that mean that tasering somebody is okay, too?
If you saw an American serviceman being tasered and waterboarded, would you say, “That’s okay. It’s just interrogation. No problem.”?
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 5:57 am
I’ve been reading Patterico for almost four years. Until yesterday I was not aware that it was a pro-torture site.
I see. Well then, you’re not reading very closely, because this subject has come up before yesterday.
I’ve never been a Democrat before, but if it’s the only party that opposes torture, I’d join it in a second.
Go. Sounds like you’re already there, because the “I’ve been a life long Republican until I heard they believed in XXXXX” line is old, tired and worn-out…and a common talking point used by Lefties masquerading as the Right.
Do you really want the GOP to be “The Party of Torturers”. Lincoln would be so proud.
Lincoln would be so proud of the way you fold up like a cheap card table since you are for thousands of people dying in terrorist attacks. Oh, that’s right, there’s only 500 terrorists in the world at any time, I forgot.
Comment by Paul — 11/4/2007 @ 6:03 am
I’ve also seen reporters getting tasered. Does that mean that tasering somebody is okay, too?
Come out of the closet, Ken, you know your a lib.
If you saw an American serviceman being tasered and waterboarded, would you say, “That’s okay. It’s just interrogation. No problem.”?
No, we rescue the serviceman.
People in the military do not stand around like topiary, Ken.
Comment by Paul — 11/4/2007 @ 6:08 am
Somewhat better Ken. Stick to stating what you believe instead of dishonestly attributing positions to people they don’t hold. Juvenile insults, baseless conclusions, and factless posts like the ones you were making are hallmarks of Greenwald, Kos and Huffpo where it appeared you cut your teeth. If you’ve been reading this site for four years you would know that’s not the style here.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/4/2007 @ 6:10 am
Who said that? I didn’t. I said “Torture, when it’s over, doesn’t leave you in exactly as good condition as you were when it started.”
I don’t see anything about scarring, permanent or otherwise.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 6:15 am
Under certain circunstances, yes, tasering is OK. That’s why we have tasers. Are you saying that tasering is unacceptable?
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 6:16 am
Tasering a prisoner repeatedly is not acceptable. It is torture by electric shock and it is a crime in this country and every civilized country. Just because a reporter has been tasered or waterboarding does not make it torture. It is torture and it is a crime.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 6:29 am
What is the purpose of this comment? Do you believe that conservatives must be for torture? It seems that you and Pablo are trying to drive away anyone that’s against torture. Is is going to be a litmus test for the Republican Party to be pro-torture? I ask again, do you really want the Republican Party to be known as the “Party of Torturers”?
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 6:52 am
Define “repeatedly”…
I mean, is there a time in-between hits that must be observed? Max number a day?
Just wondering…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/4/2007 @ 6:55 am
Actually Pablo, there’s several cases where cops throw the book out the window, and get the guy to talk.
They consider finding the person alive more important than a conviction, and it’s rare the parents don’t agree.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/4/2007 @ 6:57 am
Tasering is a crime, Ken? Tasering is torture? Uh, no.
Countering hysteria = driving anyone away.
Nice. Did you have a big bowl of Hyperbole Pebbles for breakfast?
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 7:17 am
Right. So they’re acting outside the law and the Constitution. Which is not to say that there aren’t times when it’s the morally correct thing to do, but it is what it is.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 7:19 am
BTW, the Democrats don’t oppose torture. They oppose Republicans and are eager to grab any handle they possibly can to bash them with. And I, for the record, am not a Republican.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 7:22 am
I agree. They do it knowing they are going to likely hang for it.
But like you said, sometimes it’s the moral thing to do.
“Good Cop and Bad Cop left for the day. I’m a different kind of cop.”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/4/2007 @ 7:23 am
Briefly tasering somebody who is resisting arrest is acceptable. It is pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions. (I just realized that my link above is to the U.S. Code top page, not the definition of torture.)
If you are doing it in order to cause suffering–e.g. extract information by causing pain–it is torture and it is a crime. You know this and I know this. The fact that a reporter on television was tasered once or another reporter was waterboarded for a few seconds in no way changes the facts. Every time you argue otherwise you are perverting the truth.
I could soft-pedal my feelings here, but then you wouldn’t know that every time you defend torturers, you disgust and revolt me. Calling this reaction “hysteria” further disgusts and revolts me.
You are not convincing anyone when you claim it is not torture. You are only further alienating decent people.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 7:59 am
Ken, you might want to go back and review the tasering point, which was your argument.
Now you’ve morphed that into this, with no hep at all from me:
You’re gonna have to play with that strawman all by yourself.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 8:11 am
Before you know it, you’ll be calling it torture. Booga booga.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 8:12 am
For the record, here’s the transcript. It’s actually a pretty uncompromising stand against torture:
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 8:37 am
Do you believe that conservatives must be for torture? It seems that you and Pablo are trying to drive away anyone that’s against torture. Is is going to be a litmus test for the Republican Party to be pro-torture?
You made this comment after making this threat to “switch parties”:
I’ve never been a Democrat before, but if it’s the only party that opposes torture, I’d join it in a second.
Yet, still you argue:
I ask again, do you really want the Republican Party to be known as the “Party of Torturers”?
Ah, the appeal to emotion and the “What will people think?” line. And you wonder why I think you are a lib in disguise.
Because if it is a single issue that will force you to switch, then the Dems are your home, because they are a coalition of single issue believers.
Comment by Paul — 11/4/2007 @ 8:43 am
For the record, here’s the transcript. It’s actually a pretty uncompromising stand against torture
Not exactly, Ken.
Bill’s for it, Hillary’s against it, Russert calls Bill on it, Bill slithers away by changing his stance to match the venue and the subject.
I’ve paid close attention to Bill and Hillary for the last 15 years. I know a dog-and-pony show when I see it.
Comment by Paul — 11/4/2007 @ 8:53 am
No, what Clinton is saying is that it’s OK as long as the President has plausible deniability, as long as it isn’t tied directly to him. That’s an uncompromising stand on torture in the same way that you’re making a rational, logical argument. Which is to say that it isn’t that at all.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 8:55 am
And you’ll also notice that Clinton isn’t talking about waterboarding, he’s talking about Jack Bauer beat-it-out-of-them type actual torture.
In other words, we should have an uncompromising policy that we ignore when it’s convenient for us to do so. Or maybe we’ll ask the guy to get the job done and then hang him out to dry for it with the benefit of hindsight. Depending on what “the truth” turns out to be. Or maybe the media coverage.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 9:01 am
You said: “Ken, if you don’t like our answers, why are you hanging around?”
Later you said: “Come out of the closet, Ken, you know your a lib.”
What is the purpose of these statements? You seem to be implying that to be against torture is intrinsically liberal!!! Are you trying to drive away anyone that is against torture? If you do, then you will have succeeded in making the Republican Party the “Party of Torturers.” That is my point.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 9:19 am
Ken, the logic behind many believing you to be a liberal has already been stated. It makes a good case.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/4/2007 @ 9:37 am
Yep, Ken, all Democrats are uncompromising on “torture”, except when they are not of course.
Comment by SPQR — 11/4/2007 @ 9:41 am
What does this conversation have to do with the Republican party? Absolutely nothing, Ken.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 9:48 am
So you’re another person who believes only liberals oppose torture?
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 9:56 am
I don’t believe that liberals oppose torture. See the link in SPQR’s #67 and review the Clinton statement.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 9:58 am
I believe that liberals oppose Republicans. There’s nothing more to it than that.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 9:59 am
While there may be some liberals who oppose torture only to oppose Republicans, I believe that the vast majority are sincere. I had thought until yesterday that most conservatives opposed torture on principle, too. There are laws and international treaties against it because it is so offensive.
While I wish all Democrats and Republicans were united against torture, unfortunately, that is not the case. Some on each side of the aisle defend it. I am not that political a person. I only commented here this week because I am so outraged that people are denying that waterboarding is torture and joking about torture.
From a Google search, I can only find three times I’ve commented on this blog before. Only one of those comments is political. It’s about Reed Hundt’s intimidation tactics. Censorship and torture appear to be my hot-button issues!
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 11:06 am
I wish everyone was united against killing. Killing is bad! and we should never do it. Except for when it’s necessary.
Comment by Pablo — 11/4/2007 @ 11:18 am
Ken is right. Everyone else is either an amoral or immoral torturer.
Ken, your sweeping generalities and hyperbole have left me permanently scarred. Quit torturing me.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2007 @ 11:22 am
Ken Hirsch,
Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that waterboarding is torture. In fact, let’s assume that standing naked in freezing cold and other coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA are torture, too. Where does that get us?
From a legal standpoint, it means we can’t use those techniques because US law forbids torture – except possibly for national security purposes, so maybe those techniques are back on the table again. However, anyone who uses those techniques will be subject to an elevated risk of prosecution since torture is illegal. That puts our national security personnel in a real Catch-22.
From a moral standpoint, we can feel good about ourselves because we have principles – except when we learn we could have avoided another 9/11 or Madrid or London bombing but we didn’t. It’s a hollow principle that let’s innocent people die – people who believe the government is working to protect them – when it might have prevented it.
From a practical standpoint, we may have hamstrung our national security intelligence-gatherers – so what this comes down to is whether defining waterboarding as torture is reasonable. That’s really all we’re talking about here. It’s semantics to argue other whether this is coercive or torture, and one is fine while the other isn’t.
The ultimate question is where on the continuum of interrogation techniques do we as a society (not you and I as individuals) draw the line on permissible tactics. It doesn’t matter whether we are Democrats or Republicans. Until we find a better technique, waterboarding high-value detainees who we think have valuable information is effective. I submit it’s a technique our leaders and people are willing to use in some situations.
Comment by DRJ — 11/4/2007 @ 11:37 am
DRJ – You are always so much nicer and thoughtful than I can ever manage.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2007 @ 11:40 am
Thank you, JD, but we all have something to offer here. Your comments are sincere, thoughtful and, depending on the context, humorous or passionate. I’m grateful for and always benefit from your contributions.
Comment by DRJ — 11/4/2007 @ 12:18 pm
Whereas DRJ just annoys the hell out of me with her syrupy touchy-feely approach to subjects such as violence.
Analysis? I think she’s better than Patterico on these subjects, not least of which because she’s more interested in them. Also, she seems to “get them” more than many male bloggers without military experience do. Style? Gag me.
Comment by Christoph — 11/4/2007 @ 12:25 pm
Waterboarding is torture, as has been found by courts before. See this brief article in today’s Washington Post, or this rough draft of an academic article. And it is torture according to acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin, who voluntarily underwent waterboarding in order to investigate its legality.
It’s established law, not a matter of semantic quibbling. There are no exceptions to the law for national security purposes. There are no exceptions for any purpose. Our national security personnel our not in a Catch-22. They are not permitted to torture. It is a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Even if we change our laws to permit torture, anybody who tortures is still subject to prosecution by any number of other countries, our allies.
Nobody has presented any convincing evidence to me that torture makes us safer.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/4/2007 @ 3:45 pm
Ken Hirsch,
If waterboarding is torture and a crime, why weren’t the CIA agents who waterboarded KSM charged?
Comment by DRJ — 11/4/2007 @ 5:06 pm
Because, at the time they did it, the Office of Legal Counsel said it was legal. When they realized that no court would ever agree with that, Congress passed a law to protect the torturers:
Public Law 109-148 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ACT, 2006
SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel.–In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent’s engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.
Comment by Ken Hirsch — 11/5/2007 @ 5:44 am
Good stuff, very nicely done!
http://srubibablo.com
The Good lad an author! I much like site!
Comment by Boannycoent — 11/30/2007 @ 4:36 am