Dark Times
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
06 March 2009
While I work on dispatches regarding torture, it appears that some people are getting what they want; many have asked for proof that torture occurred, and that torture be defined. These questions are fair and important. Yet it seems that these questions often are asked with an air of smugness that the questions cannot or will not be answered. The issue is sharply politicized and so truth will hide under the nearest rock. My views on torture, partially shaped by battlefield experience, are apolitical. They are merely pragmatic based on life experience.
There is a gathering storm and it promises to wreak havoc. It would be sad to see CIA agents prosecuted for following orders, but this subject goes to the heart of darkness and is by nature a swamp where everybody involved will get bitten. Every American soldier knows that following orders is his or her duty, and to ignore an order could result in imprisonment, or even execution. But every soldier is also trained that to perform unlawful orders is unlawful. For instance, if a General orders a Captain to line up unarmed non-combatants and shoot them for no reason, the action would constitute murder. A war crime. The Captain could claim he was only following orders, but that might not save him because he is a military professional and knows better. (A fact from the battlefields: I have many times witnessed American officers and sergeants from the Army and Marines, protecting prisoners from the wrath of Iraqis, but it is a fact that Iraqis often torture prisoners.) If the soldier were 19 years-old and executed an unlawful order from a high ranking sergeant or officer, maybe the court would have mercy, and I certainly would view the circumstance differently. But who knows what a judge would say?And so it appears that we are facing dark times on this issue. CIA officers might soon be accused of torturing prisoners.
Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Especially those that rise above the fact that the names "Bush" and "Obama" are involved. This issue is bigger than you and I, and it's bigger than any President.
CIA Veterans Blast Senate Probe of Operations Under Bush
By Bobby Ghosh
Time.com
Washington Friday, Mar. 06, 2009.....But even Agency veterans winced at the latest bombshell from Gitmo: the revelation that the CIA destroyed 92 videotapes that may have shown detainees being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. "It would have been my instinct to say that these [videotapes] are the sort of thing we have to keep," says Ford.
For the CIA staffers who may come under scrutiny in the Leahy and Feinstein investigations, there's some consolation in the fact that their new boss is in their corner. Former Congressman and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta has promised to cooperate with Congress, saying, "I think that we have a responsibility to be transparent on these issues and to provide them that information." But during his confirmation hearings by Feinstein's Committee, Panetta made it clear he doesn't support the prosecution of CIA staff involved in detention and interrogation of terror suspects, saying they were simply following guidelines issued by the Bush administration. At a media roundtable last week, Panetta returned to the theme: "I would not support any investigation or a prosecution of those individuals. I think they did their job, they did it pursuant to the guidance that was provided them, whether you agreed or disagreed with it."
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
| Recurring Paypal Support | One Time Paypal Support | For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net | ||
 |
||||
|
(Recurring subscriptions |
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
That said, and with all due respect to people like Sen. McCain who was a recipient of torture (not harsh interrogation), I see nothing wrong with that form of questioning. As Dennis Miller has noted, (and I paraphrase) water boarding is a way of getting necessary information out of someone who doesn't wish to part with it; it doesn't kill; and it doesn't leave you maimed for life.
These wars we're fighting are rough, and the enemy combatants have a 5th century mentality/mindset. Traditional PsyOps isn't going to work on medievalists as it would on someone from, say, oh, the 20th century.
It's a war. You gotta do what you gotta do ƒ?? especially with the aim of saving our people's lives. Sorry, it isn't nice, sorry it isn't clean, but the men on the ground making the hard decisions don't have the luxury of leaning back, having a cocktail and discussing pros and cons , ad nauseam, before deciding what to do.
That said torture for torture's sake is abominable. But that (usually, and hopefully, always) isn't the case. This isn't an exercise in S&M porn ... it's seeking information as quickly and efficiently as possible, when all the usual combat "niceties" haven't worked.
Just one man's opinion.
Gary P. Joyce (RVN 8/68 to 1/71)
Frankly, since their Muslim terrorist teachings say they should kill all non-believers, and preach hate and "death to infidels" to their children on a regular basis... I don't care what our military has to do to find out how to keep our fighting men and women, and innocent Americans, ALIVE! THAT should be our first priority, NOT THE WELFARE OF TERRORISTS! No, I think "HUMANE" stopped long ago and "STUPIDITY" took over. (And the stupidity started in our own CONGRESS!)
Why should we all line up as targets just to be sure we're called "humane" by the rest of the world? That's insane! And take a good, hard look at other countries around the world. They are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims - AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS! Muslims are taught to believe only in their OWN "religious freedom". All others must die.
People keep forgetting the horror of 9-11 and those who have since been beheaded (alive on video for your viewing pleasure!) by these b--t--ds! Our God is forgiving, but he does not expect us to lie down and be slaughtered!!! Wake up America, and clean out the 35 terrorist training camps currently located ON AMERICAN SOIL protected by the bogus cover of "religious freedom", before we all become radioactive from being too "HUMANE" to these savages! Remember, they teach it's wonderful to die for allah and these morons think they'll get 72 virgins. (Frankly, I always thought it was very clever of Muhammad - counting on every man's sexual lust and ignorance to encourage them to die for his elevation to power. Brainwash them from birth and you have a neverending army of suicide bombers. What a concept!)
Too much of the torture debate seems more like moral preening than like trying to address very tough and difficult issues. In fact the debate is hardly a debate. The so-called torture opponents often cannot tolerate a debate without completely demonizing those who see it differently and try to take a nuanced approach to this dilemma. And it is a dilemma. Did waterboarding KSM elicit information that averting terrorist acts and prevented the death of innocent civilians? It seems it did. Should we lose sleep over that when our own servicemen often undergo waterboarding as part of military training? It will be difficult to have a debate or figure out a policy process that has a more unifying effect on the country until we can actually have a process where we can recognize the moral complexity of the issue.
I'm not denying that actual torture may have occurred, and I do not support actual torture. However, I don't think that being uncomfortable constitutes torture, and hold roughly that if at the end of the day your limbs, members and psyche are intact, you haven't been tortured.
This is time for a careful, sober and internal assessment of the ethical, moral and practical implications of our methods, not a kangaroo trial in which 80% of the assertions are political untruths to be exploited by our enemies.
We have capitulated to the liberal side of this argument so far that the only thing our soldiers can do is to place the enemy into a well guarded facility to feed them, make sure their every need is attended to, help them feel as if they were back home, and allow them the opportunity to sue our soldiers, government for the terrible crime of having stopped them from killing or conspiring to kill us.
Frankly, I'd rather we waterboarded them all, try them and move on. Maybe the next one won't pick up that rocket launcher or strap a bomb to his body.
While I was there, a female MP was delivering meals to the detainees one day. There were vulgar obscenities coming from many of the cells, but the female MP maintained her composure and continued to do her duty. One of the detainees urinated into a cup and threw it in the female's face. She still maintained her composure and performed her duty. That is the mentality that the CIA has to deal with. I shudder to think how they would treat female American Soldiers if given the opportunity.
Many elected officials in the halls of Congress ignore stories like this because they have an agenda to remain in power and build on it. They want these terrorists to have the same rights as American citizens with civilian showcase trials. They have either sold or lost their souls.
I say we should stay out of the CIA's business. They do what is necessary to protect and defend the U.S.A. They are not Nazis who tortured Jews for sport in WWII. They are not the monsters who tortured brave men like John McCain during the Viet Nam conflict (Congress never declared it a war). They are definitely not the thugs who execute innocent Americans on television. They are people who do what needs to be done. I am happy they are there, doing their part to ensure the safety and security of our nation. Let them do their job.
To repeat what I said in an earlier thread, I learned a lot from you regarding Abu Grahib incidents and how they negatively impacted the original Iraqui occupation efforts. If you are saying that this type of investigation is important to maintain the moral high ground in theatre, then I believe you.
That said, I have my doubts about this investigation. From my perch in the USA, I see the Feinstein/Leahy investigation differently than you. This is political theatre meant for American consumption. It is not being done for the Arab moderates.
If Leahy/Feinstein include in their investigation a high profile review of how Al Quada treats its detaineees, then I will take it seriously. Otherwise, this is more bash Bush, far left nonsense.
So why pretend be shocked here that people get upset when you pull apart the USA on the topic of torture ("Ooooo When I say that the USA is bad, it makes me feel so good" & maybe "Please deposit Saudi check directly into my acccount!")
My standard is that anything that is not permanent is not torture - as long as the subject recovers fully, it isn't torture. I have recovered from sleep deprivation - I have survived my children's music blaring loudly. I probably would not have survived a Gulag or Nazi concentration camp without death or serious scars.
During Ranger school training for POW camp we learned that most guys did not break during the beatings - and these were pretty severe - one CSM had his ribs cracked during the experience - not many guys broke. After the beatings we met with a "red cross" representative and some unwittingly gave up all the information they were trying to get in the beatings. Torture is probably not the most effective way to interrogate, but we should let the experts propose what is required and the executive branch has to approve the techniques through directives and regulation. Lawmakers can argue the specifics of the reg and investigate that, but as long as the CIA and others are in compliance, they should be given immunity from prosecution.
Again, I wish the CIA kept the tapes - they should be studied, just like any battle - what techniques worked, which ones were ineffective? The cover up will be worse than the crimes and heads will probably roll - at least in our culture, that is only a figure of speech.
I personally think morally that " once an initiation of force in comitted towards me I am morally correct in destroying the person initiating.
I have seen a SEAL feed a VC a meal, give him a beer and cigarette and be nice to him. In that case, it worked. He expected to be killed and wouldn't shut up after he realized that was not going to happen. There are varying degrees of effectiveness and not all respond the same. The secret, if there is one, is to know which type of treatment will elicit the proper response. Just torturing somebody for the pure hell of it is bad and should not be done.
I'm all for them receiving bacon and eggs for breakfast and stuffed pork chops for dinner. For exercise, they can clean kennels and walk the dogs.
Come up with a type of hog/dog blood bomb and spray system. Drop the bombs on the moscs. Going into a hell-hole city? Send in "sprayers" ahead of the troops.
I'm sick to death of us walking on egg shells around this sub-humane debri.
1. America, the most humane country in the world, is constantly being castigated for the sins of the throat cutters and the stone throwers. Why might that be?
2. Still no definition of "torture". Why might that be?
And now the ones who are being toyed with after the fact (or should I say being tortured?) for stopping violent creatures from harming innocents will bear the brunt of the confused moral calculus this Congress has not defined but will now deploy.
Strange focus for strange times. The ironic solution for such a calculus is that violence will flourish, but the real peace achievers won't.
It is folly to believe that fighting this enemy with both hands tied behind our backs is proper tactics and the morally up-right thing to do. It is folly to believe that we lower ourselves to the enemies level by using torture. The enemy will use any means necessary to defeat us. If we do not do all we can, employ every tactic possible, including those tactics not even though of yet, then we do not deserve the freedoms we have.
Men who take up arms against using the most destructive and devious tactics in the process, are not deserving of our humanity, nor the protections of our Bill of Rights. Mr. Yon, you have my utmost respect and admiration, and I respectfully, and vehemently disagree with you on this issue. God speed Sir.
neverquit
No one should be calling these creeps soldiers, of any kind. They are murderers, not holy warriors. They not only torture soldiers and innocents, but maim, rape and steal whatever at will without any restraint. Tell me about how our treatment of them has resulted in an improvement of anyone's treatment, even their own? Or how our treatment of them has raised our status in the eyes of the world? No, we are just seen as weak and ineffective.
The world would be much better off if we would quit being so politically correct and just get the job done, the sooner the better.
First, torture MUST be defined, and defined in detail. MANY believe that, for instance, waterboarding is NOT torture. When our troops undergo waterboarding as part of their training, it should NOT be classified as torture.
Second, waterboarding was not deemed illegal when the occurrences of said actions took place; therefore, NO probe or prosecution should ever take place.
THIS ENTIRE MATTER IS POLITICAL !!!!!
I think JC Gorman frames the issue perfectly.
The reason CIA agents are destroying interrogation tapes is because they have no idea what the investigators **or foriegn lefty governments** will consider torture.
Are we talking about waterboarding? Okay. That seems to have happened to 3 individuals who I can't work up any sympathy for. Rape and beatings? The military and CIA seem to consider that a crime already.
Making them stand for long periods? Keeping them awake? Are we really going to define torture down that far? How long can you make someone stand before it's torture? Sec. Rumsfield rightly noted that he had no chair in his office at the Pentagon by choice.
Q. Was the destruction part of a routine scheduled purge (e.g. the tapes were deemed as having no further value and were, therefore destroyed)?
Q. When were the tapes destroyed relative to specific allegations and/ot investigations?
Q. Was the destruction directed by a single authority or spread thrughout the responsible department? The former would lend greater credence to a concerted effort to cover up while the latter could indicate a more routine and benign action.
Q. Is there any relationship between the tapes? If they were in chronological order, for example, it again might indicate a routine practice. If the tapes destroyed covered only some interrogations over a period of time or seemed to be those conducted by the same agents, it would not look as innocent.
To get such overt political posturing from Congressional Democrats is, while disappointing, not unexpected. Unfortunately, the exact same statement can be made concerning the reporter's lack in interest in these obvious questions that could cast the destruction in an entirely differen light.
Those arguing that the destruction of interrogation tapes proves torture by the CIA are confusing intelligence work and military work with police work, all of which fall under different domains of law. A harsh interrogation does not violate international law as it applies to war though it might violate domestic law with respect to criminals. Those pressing the case for the jihadis are attempting to shop their case to the court which will give them the sweetest deal, ie the domestic court, where they have more rights and guarantees than the proper regime of international law where they belong. The Japanese and German POWs of WWII did not have access to US domestic courts to try their cases and determine their guilt. They were imprisoned until they ceased hostilities. The jihadsi should be imprisoned until they cease hostilities. They should be treated as combatants, not criminals. That includes pro-active interrogation to collect information to ward off future attacks on America, not reactive interrogations to collect evidence for prosecution.
Destroying tapes of interrogations is not proof of torture. That accusation is a fallacious argument. There are many good reasons to destroy those tapes. For example, they would reveal the identity of the interrogators, who would be subject to attacks on them and their family. The methods of interrogation would be revealed, which jihadis could use as a teaching aid to better resist it. By that I mean the intellectual gamesmanship between interrogator and interrogated. The most effective way to interrogate somebody is to just start talking to them normally, as demonstrated by Marine Major Sherwood Ford Moran in the Pacific Theater of WWII:
http://home.comcast.net/~drmoran/home.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/budiansky
The Left is using false accusations of torture for several bad reasons. First, making false accusations that can not be refuted is a tactic to advance their agenda. When they accuse the CIA of covering up torture by destroying the tapes, it is a slander that can not be disproved, as you can not prove a negative. Second, if such accusations can force publication of interrogation tapes not destroyed, the Left can use them to make any number of accusations short of torture, thus advancing their agenda. Third, this is an attempt by the Left to criminalize policy differences so that future Republican administrations will be crippled by threats of gratuitous lawsuits by following Democrat administrations . It's a way of ruling the country by threat and diktat, rather than debate and consensus.
Am disgusted with the continuing bipartisanship demonstrated by politicians interfering with our soldiers trying to keep America out of harm's way. Do we really think tea and crumpets will get a terrorist to tell us of a possible mission to kill our people? Come on, get real. Let's just not become the barbarians we are fighting...and draw a line. I have faith in those who are in the position of getting information that will save our lives. Call me too trusting....but there are those who will do what must be done and I'm grateful for them and am not willing to cast a stone.
When I was a kid I jumped in to water too deep when I knew I could not swim. I was pulled out by a lifeguard. I remember it to this day over 45 years later, but I do not wake up in cold sweats in the middle of the night freaking out over it. Sound remotely similar to water boarding? I'll bet that those animals who experienced water boarding go back every day to their prayer rugs and three hots and a cot and just really sweat it out with Allah, right?
The real moral highground is that we stop the animals from more attacks on innoncents and eventually WMD. It is unfortunate that we have to dumb down our tactics to the level to satisfy the lowest common denominator in the world just to avoid the "controversy" and possible retaliation. It seems to me that the retaliatory tactics we are trying to avoid are already being employed, but under a different category that is more convenient to talk about and try to understand by the high minded among us.
The heroes out there in the military and intelligence who are on the line protecting us deserve better consideration from us. If everything all works out in the end of this global nightmare we can debate about it, but it will be in a much safer and secure world to have that debate. Just read some of the stories and talk to real people who survived after the bombs were dropped on Japan to end WW II, and I mean both US military and Japanese civilians. Most will abhor the nature of that beast that was unleashed, but they are here now to debate it, whereas had we stuck to"conventional" means then, most likely multitudes more would not be. I have done that bit of data collection personally on each side and it is always insightful.
Michael, keep up the great work out there in the danger zone with the best the US and our allies have to offer. Know that the work you are all doing is immensely appreciated. Our prayers are with all of you.
The weakest argument I think that is made by opponents of torture is the Golden Rule: we should not do to our enemies what we ourselves would dread to face. We would never wish in a million years to be the recepient of the same war-fighting capabilities that our armed forces bring to bear in combat, from long-distance sniping to laser-guided bombs dropping without mercy. But on the flip side, we should not hold our own standard of conduct to that of our enemies, because we ARE better than they are. We don't fight and kill for conquest, we don't rape and pillage, and we don't sell our enemies' women and children into slavery, like our ancestors, the rational and philosophical Greeks did.
Try not to view this issue through the lens of this current conflict. We won't always be fighting Muslim fanatics, and our future enemies will not always be as barbaric as these ones are. But what we do now will be our legacy, and if we compromise our values out of revenge for what these animals do to us, we will have to accept that decision and endure the consequences for generations to come. Did we torture and kill captured Nazi POWs? No, and we are proud of our conduct during that horrible war. Yet even today we endure the guilt of My Lai, one single terrible incident that our enemies (both foreign and domestic, by the way) have manipulated public perception into believing this was business as usual by American forces in Vietnam. On top of that, do we know that torture is the best method of extracting critical information? I feel that any politician or proponent of torture that says there is no other effective way, or that it is an either or situation of either we torture or lots of Americans will die, suffers from a lack of imagination. If we could invent the atomic bomb and split the atom, I think we can crack the mind of a terrorist detainee without cracking bones. Where there's a will, there's a way.
We also have to consider the perception of our enemies. In this respect, the perception that Americans torture can have as many blessings as curses. A detainee may be more willing to reveal information if he believes that torture is common practice. On the other hand, other terrorists may be less willing to surrender if they think we do what Jack Bauer does in 24. In my opinion, I think it would be most effective if our enemies didn't know what we were capable of, but as a nation, we need to decide what is morally acceptable, and live with that legacy for years to come.
I fought and served in Iraq, and the future matters to me. I look forward to a future where I can tell my grandchildren that I fought in this war that we were victorious in, not one where I have to say that I served honorably in a war we lost. Do we want to tell our children in the future with pride that during this conflict we didn't adopt a policy of torture (since then it will be public record what we did), or do we want to walk the tightrope of moral equivalency, such as we commonly do when we defend this nation's greatness and history while at the same time having to explain our legacy of slavery? Just something to think about.
I agree with your position regarding torture, but you are trying to create hype and conspiracy regarding the destruction of the video tapes. Do you know what was on tapes? There is NO evidence that the destruction of these tapes was improper. In fact, regulations routinely require the destruction of classified material. Stick to reporting facts and leave the moonbat stuff to the MSM.
I've seen a lot of comments from your readers, but really, very little from you. You say you're opposed to torture on pragmatic grounds. That sounds like my kind of reasoning. Can you spell out the "pragmatic grounds"? Are you opposed because it doesn't work? Because the political fall-out is worse more than the info obtained?
Please don't take this as a challenging or confrontational message. My personal belief is that torture is abhorrent, but that torture needs to be defined, and like most difficult issues in life, the answer is usually "well, it depends." I respect your experience and would appreciate a little more insight into your position. It might make me change mine.
Having said all that, there should be no prosecution at this time. It's politically motivated, pure and simple.
On a separate note, despite some reports to the contrary, I believe Time is wrong about those allegedly destroyed tapes being of Gitmo interrogations; I think they were actually of those conducted by the CIA elsewhere.
It would seem our nation certainly and perhaps even the world is at a crossroads. The direction we go will have great impact on the continuance of the United States as we have known it. The "change" is already occuring and indeed being accelerated today. Will the U.S. have any solutions for any nation when we are so adrift in ours?
Because of the extreme hate of Islam toward Christians as well as non-muslims, the methods to gain critical information for the protection of the U.S. armed forces as well as citizens is not only allowable but neccessary.
We battle not against flesh and blood!
There are so many rumors circulating, please let's leave the so-called CIA tapes, etc. in the rumor-mill and stay with facts. And speaking of facts...there are most likely so many "black opps" going on that we may never know the truth about many things. I just hope that in our comments we stop dissing the U.S.A., our homeland, so much. While not perfect, it's the best thing on earth at the moment even with our failings. If you find a better place to live, then I hope you get a chance to go there and be blessed.
I am reading Washington Irving's biography of George Washington, our first President. We've fallen a long way from where we started. The only reason there is hope is because there is a God who cares and is in ultimate control.
Our God also tells us an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I abhor "torture" (what is it?) unless absolutely necessary to secure vital information for an imminant need, unless we have good knowledge that the individual involved has himself/herself used torture or plotted/committed violent acts against us. Then I have no reservation to using whatever it takes. If a captive was a plotter or the 19th man for 9/11, e.g., go at it. If the captive got on an airplane with explosives in his heel with intent to bring down a plane of innocent passengers and crew, I think it O.K. to seek whatever information that person has as to other persons planning, plotting, financing, equipping or teaching such conduct. In that case, use what it takes. We are dealing with a sub-human "individual" who will destroy us if possible. We put down mean dogs that attack their neighbors. We need fast and sure and public retribution. Take the rapist out and castrate him in the public square. He won't do it again. The Saudis publically cut off the stealer's hand. While I wouldn't go that far, I think unconscionable violance must be met in kind to set fear and stop it like NOW!
As far as the tapes, so what? If they contained classified materials that may disclose or put in harms way the persons shown or discussed on them, or if they were of no further utility, it was a good thing. This new administration has shown it will reveal anything that might cast dispersion on its predecessor. The leadership in congress has shown it is a sieve of critical information. Anything for a political advantage, regardless how small. It is a constant trickle of disparagement.
The liberals have castigated GWB since election day in 2000. They would destroy our life as we know it for political advantage and control. They continue to flog the dead dog. They constantly must have a bogeyman to raise obsene amounts of cash and whip the savants into a continual frenzy to further their ends. This week it is El Rushbo. Their next target will be anyone who might pose a future opposition. We are dealing with fanaticals who have a vastly different view of America.
Michael, as a war reporter you are the best. Please return to what you do best. Thanks.
i'm happy that our brave cia soldiers destroyed eveidence.
saves their families from toture by the conmmunists that parade around under the "elected official" banner, while compromising our national security.
v/r...........mikee
To my knowledge, the only specific technique that has been banned is waterboarding, which does not seem to me to qualify as torture. It does not appear to be life threatening, it does not cause physical pain or impairment. It would seem that the emotional distress it creates in the subject would normally be overcome in the natural course of events. Ironically, with all the media hype about it, waterboarding may have been rendered ineffective as a technique because it is so widely described. Much of the power of an interrogator would seem to lie in the element of ignorance regarding the techniques used. Instead of micro-managing with proud superiority by banning a specific act, would it not be more helpful to affirm the ethical principles that we want as Americans to bring to bear when we or our fellow citizens are faced with dealing with enemy combatants who may possess knowledge vital to the security of our nation?
Civilian oversight of the military is a powerful moral force in our republic, and moral lapses in the conduct of any American soldiers, espionage agents, or law enforcement officers need to be dealt with justly. Historically, however, congress has often used allegations of misconduct more to further their own political careers than to work for justice. Courts have been much more reliable, whether civilian or military courts. Further, our fellow citizens who serve honorably in the military, espionage, and police forces have consistently provided the best, albeit not perfect, handling of most serious ethical problems that arise in their ranks. Does anyone really think that congress' handling of the Abu Grahib issue contributed more positively to bring justice to bear than our own military's response?
America, with its judeo-christian roots, has historically risen above the ethics of many, if not most, of the enemies she has faced in warfare. If a dialogue regarding torture can help us to maintain that tradition, I support it, but I give no credence to statements on the issue, like many heard from politicians, that are undefined accusations that reek of self-aggrandizement. Don't our fellow Americans who put themselves in harm's way on behalf of us all deserve better than that?
Torture exists along a continuum of strategies designed to elicit information from someone resistant to our cause. On one end of the continuum, an agent may attempt to gain the cooperation of someone by friendly means (fraternization , promises of leniency or rewards, etc.); at the other end of the continuum, through strategies that induce mental and/or physical distress; and all points in between. Any of these methods can be used to obtain the cooperation of someone with information that would secure and protect civilian lives, the lives of military personnel, and/or our National Security. An individuals threshold of pleasure or pain, as well as their commitment to their cause is varied, so what may be torturous to one may not be so for another.
The debate on torture should not be decided as good-bad or moral-immoral; the realities of the current geo-political climate are far too complex for that. Our country is engaged in conflicts that are being fought along several fronts; philosophical, theological, economical, and material (armed conflict) so a variety of strategies are necessary to ensure victory. The strategies to obtain vital information must be maleable enough to be effective; in other words, when it comes to "torture" the ends sometimes justify the means.
If the current methods for obtaining information vital to our cause have proven effective, we should continue to have them at our disposal until we have achieved victory. Maintaining the moral high ground is effective only when both sides embrace a similar moral or ethical code and dealing with terrorists or their sympathizers does not seem to fit this ideal. A gentleman cannot usually persuade a thug to see things from his gentle perspective; so he must adapt if he is to survive; as should we.
With the kindest regards for you and all you do,
Karl Garcia
Wow, you did set off a firestorm. Clearly, some of us your readers feel we must defend what we believe very strongly.
As an example, First Amendment fanatics want no controls or limits of any kind. But for the very next amendment, the Second, they want every restriction applied.
Of the two in the wrong hands and put to suicidal purposes, which is the mightier, the pen or the sword?
Humans, not just Americans, feel deeply threatened when we are told that we must surrender a weapon. Torture, from its spectre to its manifest, is a weapon.
Here's the issue for me: America stopped being special a long time ago. She has been made to feel guilty for all previous wrongs (real or imagined) and for being unique, strong and unapologetic. I think the chief reason the accusers get away with this is because America takes justice seriously, more than many other countries do.
But lately, America has also been viciously criticized that unless she is more like every other country on the planet, she is an arrogant jerk who is the worst terrorist known to man.
Give me the clues that you believe I am currently in need of. You allude to pragmatism but offer no examples. Perhaps that is intentional, as any specific can be dissected and interpreted.
And so it is with Torture.
When human behaviour undergoes the transformation species-wide that the tool "torture" is rendered ineffectual, then perhaps I will buy in. If it didn't work, it would have gone the way of the pedal powered plane.
But life is dependably messy and the simple pronouncement that we will not do X, because we think it means we are just like our enemies if we do, is inviting divine incredulity at maximum, derisive contempt from our enemies at minimum.
If I have to admit that I am just like my enemies just so we can get off that dot and argue the real dangers to Civilization, then fine, call me names (figuratively speaking).
I refuse to fall for that facile taunt anymore.
But I am ready to reconsider if my enemies were to prove themselves ready, willing and able to renounce torture, doing so publicly, and demonstrating it organically for a convincing period of time -- without being asked.
They can start by doing the following:
(1) release a healthy Gilad Shalit (I am neither Israeli or a Jew),
(2) conduct warfare, of any kind, using every dirty trick in the book, just as they currently do-- but, do not use women and children as shields, and
(3) not allow anyone to be brain-washed into becoming a self-destructing vector to commit mass murder.
Consider:
3,000 murdered civilians, civil servants and service members on 9-11-01...
6,000 plus wounded, scarred and maimed on 9-11-01...
17 murdered sailors from the USS Cole on 10-12-00...
six murdered civilians and numerous wounded at the World Trade Center on 02-26-93...
tortured and murdered Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem on 06-15-85...
241 murdered, maimed and wounded Marines in Beirut on 10-23-83...
and on and on.
Terrorism is torture. I want to hear more voices aimed at the enemy, calling them on it, and THEN I WANT US ALL TO LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWER.
If I am to take my valuation of human life seriously, then I will prioritize the first to whom I care to prove it, to be those I love the most: My Troops and the troops of our friends who fight with us.
Here's a suggestion for Gitmo Feces and Urine Tossers Longing to be Martyrs:
The self-killed can't be tortured.
To My Troops guarding them:
Stop interrupting.
And because an image can turn public sentiment around on any subject, if it is skillfully edited that is, the CIA is very smart to destroy the tapes.
Remember Rodney King? I saw the entire tape of that arrest, not just what the vile MSM cherry picked to display. The police were not the racist monsters the edited tape made them out to be. Rodney King was not the helpless, innocent simpleton he was made out to be.
When America can no longer be trusted to protect those who serve her in such profound circumstances such as to have to get information out of someone else in order to save lives, for crying out loud, then the agents are entitled to protect themselves.
I have sent you a message or two since your post praising president Obama for saying the US will no longer torture asking you to specifically state WHAT you define as torture. If you do not do that then there is no way I can say (in my opinion) whether I think you are right or wrong in "your" opinions. I mean is water boarding torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is taking away a detainee's copy of the Koran torture? Was it torture when Col. West fired his sidearm next to an Iraqi prisoner's head.Come on, Michael you have to be specific.
Beware of Lawrence of Arabia syndrome Michael.
We struggle against destructive and evil ideologies that mean us harm, however we would be mistaken to believe that this threat was only external and not internal as well. There are few evils greater than torture and the rational that would justify it.
I highly respect you as a journalist and your experience as a past special forces soldier and as an embedded party in many campaigns and I contribute to your cause and bought your book.
Let's do a little what if? I am your father and your are captured by AQ, or the Taliban and they behead you. Your comrades in arms capture one of the perpetraitors. He has the knowlege of who committed this dastardly, bloody, unholy deed. How do you suggest they get that information out of him, so we can arrest him and bring him to justice, so me and your family and friends can have some closure regarding your death at the hands of terrorists?
1. "Pragmatic" means devoid of principle. Or did you just mean "practical"? Americans must learn that there is a radical difference between these two things.
2. If Michael and the posts which reply - both pro and con - do not define what they meann by torture, this debate is useless. Why can't everyone specify: A. extreme pain to elicit crucial information; B. pain inflicted beyond what is judged necessary to gain crucial information; C.pain exacted in vengeance or retribution.
3. Michael, I think you should address those who seriously critique your position and ignore those whom you deem insincere or hypocritical. There are serious posiitons in favor of "torture" as in A. above, and you should answer those.
However, I believe all this posturing by Leahy and the Democrats has nothing to do with torture. It is all about their obsession with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. Every since President Bush was elected or "stole" the election, Democrats like Conyers, Pelosi, Durbin and others have tried to find some way to impeach and try them for war crimes. They have never forgiven the Republicans for impeaching their boy Bill. It is all about power and the peacenik base of the Democrats. This is the same crowd that includes Kerry and other anti-war leftists. This entire group including the ACLU are out to turn this country into a European liberal weak country. Don't forget Carter and Stansfield Turner who basically hamstrung our CIA and other undercover agencies. This is their agenda. We will end up paying a terrible price for this administration and their Code Pink base.
Mike a Southern Rebel
I'm not smug. I resent such an implication. Abu Gharib, for example, was not torture or anything close to it; it was abject stupidity by a few members of the military blown all out of proportion to its signifigance, a media blowout. I'm not smug about that either. Compared to what went on in Nazi concentration camps, it was like a flea on an elephant. Compared to what Hussein's men did there, the slaughter of innocents, hundreds of thousands of them, it was a single rain drop in a deluge. Torture? Where the Hell are our brains, where we sit down?
Moral high ground? If we lose the war and the enemy captures ten thousand of our troops, how many do you think will make it home without scars? What happened at our Embassy in Iran? How many Lebanese Christians suffered all types of inhumane tortures before they were killed?
What's going on in Havana today, what about the imprisonment of 50 librarians and journalists? Those in the U.S. who make the biggest stink about our supposed torture are wearing Che t-shirts. No, I am not smug, but I question all of this discussion, as I think that it too is harmful to the men winning the war and coming home.
In retrospect, I saw one ship hit by an aerial torpedo explode and take 580 men with her, back in 1944. Had there been a captive that held the time and place of attack, how much effort should have been made to extract such information from him? Nah, I'm not smug, but I'm not dumb either. Decision time will give me my answer.
The great, almost unique thing about your site is its first-hand reporting, in the face of MSM neglect, about what our soldiers are actually doing in the field. Should it turn into a forum for everyone's opinions on vexed subjects like "torture" -- well, I can get that lots of places, if I want it.
Politics aside, some matters just don't bear much discussion, and this is one of them. Try to spell everything out, and you remove a desirable uncertainty about how far you'll go. We see the result of an over-explicit approach in the catch-and-release policy now applied to pirates in the Gulf of Aden who, caught in the act, cheerfully "surrender" in the confidence that their captors are too rule-bound to do anything serious in the way of punishment.
Also, the American media has allowed itself to be used time and time again by the other side to distract our own political process and change the focus from fighting the enemy to fighting among ourselves. The media are the greatest cheerleaders for the enemy. The media would rather crucify our American troops instead of publishing one article about the wrong doing of the enemy. Of course we all know that if the media started to publish too much about the wrongful acts of the enemy, the enemy would stop paying all of their advertising fees.
Don't you get it!!
This investigation re: torture, has one purpose & that's to nail Bush.
America is being destroyed from without, & within.
My Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, is the one & only true God.
Read your Bible (KJV), Mr. Yon.
You're SOF, SF specifically. You went through SERER. So did I, twice; once as a USAFA cadet and once as a CCT. We even had our own team SERER training site. You know what tactics the SERER staffs use on the trainees. You should have a first hand knowledge of what torture is, and, what it is not. Do you still have long term, residual mental and/or physical effects from your SERER training?
Are you trying to tell me and all your SOF brothers that water boarding, sleep deprivation, sensory manipulation, stress positions, physical discomfort, intense interrogation, prisoner isolation, prisoner nudity and embarassment, misinformation and indoctrination tactics, good cop/bad cop tactics, bribery, favoritism, destruction of prisoner moral, destruction of prisoner chains of authority, destruction of prisoner belief systems, are all forms of torture? Do you really believe that these methods strictly meet the international codified, agreed to, accepted definitions of torture?
You and I both know that questions about both war time and peace time treatment of prisoners has to go well beyond three hots and a cot, and, name, rank and serial number. There needs to be a realistic assessment and definition of what the US can and can not do to combat detainees and prisoners while still meeting our obligations as a rational, compassionate nation.
I eagerly await your responses.
We are way over interested in torture. It is a catch-phrase that many can hang their hat on to achieve one goal or another.
First, what is torture?
That dog which barks every 5 seconds in the middle of the night and keeps me awake is real torture....to me, that is.
Seriously, we have to have a definition which is independent of the U.N. Their version of "torture" is a stated threat. That is not torture. Non physical duress tactics used by police and reviewed by the Supreme Court are considered torture by those in the U.N.
Physical duress....some is torture; some is not. Sleep deprivation? Loud music?
War....and this is a war of a magnitude we have yet to come to realize....is not pretty. It is ugly and sometimes full of contradictions. How many instances have we heard of U.S. GI's shooting prisoners in WWII, but they were not prosecuted, for the most part? What would it have really accomplished? We can debate that, but now 60 years later, would it have been correct to prosecute a 21 year old GI who was acting out of stress, rage, etc.? I think not, but it did serve to bring attention to combat and combat stress, so that it could be reduced in the future, even it by a small percent.
All is all, we have probably conducted the most precise and cleanest war than at any other time in history. I believe we will never have a totally "clean" war, as mankind is not totally "clean." We struggle to remain above the animal base and have done an increasingly good job at it.
That all being said, I have to agree that a better definition about what we are talking about is in order. Sleep deprivation, isolation, and other methods that are designed to cause stress fit into a separate category than does that which cvauses actual physical injury, pain, and/or fear for ones life. Fear of torture may not actually be torture but may elicit information that we want. The fact that the bad guys THINK we will do them bodily harm may be enough to get them talking right away or eventually. So is that torture? I don't think so and I can tell you that it will work in a certain percent of cases. How many depends on how long the treatment is used and the personality of the bad guy. I once heard a story of the mere presence of a live piglet during an interrogation of three insurgents in Afghanistan got one talking right away. Don't ask me how anyone got a live pig into Afghanistan. However, I was present at an interrogation of a suspected insurgent in the Pesh River area at a site called the Lumberyard. Two Americans had just started talking to the guy when an Afghan soldier stomped down heavily on the suspect's foot before the Americans even knew he was doing it. That was enough pain for him to open up and start talking freely about where he was from and who he was in the hills with. So, I guess that could be considered torture but that was a spoiled rich kid from a neighboring country that had joined the Jihad who had a low threshhold for pain. A real, trained Taliban fighter would not have spoken so quickly.
I never saw actual "torture". I have seen simple things work and heard war stories about other things that also worked. None of them involved pain or anything that would cause pain. Most involved isolation and deprivation and possibly information that would be considered threatening in nature. Michael has obviously seen more than me and has the right to form his own opinion. So I read what he writes and applaud his ability to write it. Those of you that don't have enough experience (not education...EXPERIENCE) to form your own opinion should enlist and assist in the effort. Stop living vicariously through the writings of a true warrior and get some experience yourselves. Then you can start writing and we'll listen. In the meantime let Michael speak without passing judgement.
Sarmajor
As for as the "I was just following orders" defense, well, that's a little trickier. We proscribe violations of the laws of war. We proscribe inhumane treatment, and then we don't define it. So, PVT Johnson, don't worry about which orders to obey, we'll tell you after the war's over.
Torture? I was "tortured" for over three weeks by members of my own military branch when I went through Advanced Aircrew Survival!
And another point that I think is relevant in these emotional discussions:
Let's get real, godamit! We're talking about Americans here -- as a culture. And most Americans know -- they just know --- that we simply don't "Torture" people as a matter of policy. We didn't do it in the American Revolution when the British did it as a matter of policy and we didn't do it in WWII with the Japanese lunitics who ran Baatan or the Waffen SS lunatics who shot civilians just to see them bleed. Can some "Americans" Torture helpless human beings? Sadly, yes. Of course. and when they do, you can bet that an American, somewhere, will blow the whistle. .
I've worked with CIA people in my distant past. The procedures they were bound by to make sure that nobody even had a rouge thought in their heads was, to my mind, prertty extreme, but they felt that it was a self-governing protective element that kept everybody sane. They knew that when you roll around in the mud, you'll get muddy, so you'd best provide for showers and clean clothes and not do it routinely.
That's why there were so may tapes. Training. You don't EVER want to have a cadre of "career interrogators" -- it's not fair to the people or their families. If you force someone to do it too long or too often, some of the dirt can stick. So you have to keep a flow going of new people -- learn the craft, get experience, and get out and make room for someone else adn get back to clean life The other reason is that when you have a lot of people doing anything, the chances of being able to do something illegal and get away with it approaches zero.
Lastly, in the existing political climate, I cannot imagine that ANY mid- or senior-level executive in CIA either recommending or requesting that a Presidential Finding be issued to permit "harsh interrogation" methods for ANY captured enemy. They simply will not run the risk of exposing their career people to potential criminal prosecution fueled by the likes of Pat Leahy, et al., when all they'll have to do to keep putting their kids through school is simply do their job "the best they can." The forensics after the next attack will thus show that -- GASP! -- some CIA or FBI people "should have" been able to warn us prior to the attack. They'll be criticized,all right, but they wont be indicted by a grand jury and see an entire career of honorable service vaporize in an instant because a politician finds it expedient to sell him o her out for the sake of some votes.
When the citizenry allows its representatives to conduct witch hunts in a time of a complex war, and they can't trust anyone to "hande things" appropriately without needless shame, then they'll get the "representation" they deserve --- and a CIA that rigidly just "does its job beyond reproach."
Until you define what constitutes "torture" and what does not, this discussion will go nowhere. I think that is a large part of why this topic is so politically incendiary.
I put the dividing line as "heals completely in a week". Paper cuts, not torture. Broken bones - torture. Panties on head - not torture. Waterboarding - not torture. Sleep deprivation, withholding meals - not torture.
Also i separate abuse for pure sadism purposes from abuse to extract information. Abu Grahib was definitely sadism. I always wonder why the West Virginia penal System hasn't been deeply investigated after Abu Grahib considering the ringleader was a prison guard in civilian life.
Having said that, though, I think we need to ask questions.
1. What defines torture?
2. Isn't there a difference between how an aggressor and a defender is treated?
3. If one side wants to annhiliiate the other, and the sentiment is one sided, don't the defenders have grounds to "unearth" nefarious plans?
This is a sticky wicket, but I just can't see sitting back and taking the 'high moral ground' while leaving my family (country) more vulnerable to attack.
If we were trying to wipe out Iraq/Afghanistan et al, and our forces were captured and tortured, wouldn't we just accept that as par for the course? (after all-we're trying to kill the Great Muslim Satan)
But we aren't. We aren't raping women and killing kids. We offer hope for a better life.
So, while I agree that this is an issue, I think it is being played up by the enemies of America who sit in our halls of Congress, infest our colleges, and speak through our mainstream media.
Jihadists are notoriously duplicitous and skilled in their use of media to mislead weak thinkers and those who can't see beyond their own "tonsils and teeth" high decibel viewpoint.
I value your thoughtful insights and excellent photo journalism.
Commenter "John Davies" also makes an excellent point.
Just as Hell will likely be different according to your own fears, so would be torture.
Which means, to me, we can set minimums (something the Gummint* usually ends up doing anyway) below which we usually should not fall or it becomes criminal. Aside from that, it will depend on the individual situation.
*And as we all know, when the Gummint changes... never mind, let's not set "minimums," they will only be deemed war crimes by someone later and the witch hunts begin anew. I'm very tired of all of that.
Michael, like many of us who bother to take the time to leave a comment, I like you a lot, appreciate you very much and very much want you to continue to do your work. Even when you piss me off.
I await your next post expounding on your philosophy on torture.
[Thanks to WM as well for fixing the word verification problem!]
That usually either makes the anti-torturers change their tack or change the subject entirely.
Then we all fidget for a moment, look at the dessert menu and talk about that funny-sad dreaming dog video.
You notice how our new governemnt here in America is looking for every angle to rip us apart? Every facet of our traditions , economy , military , healthcare system .. top top bottom.
Our new President has a very tough time saying anything good about the USA... other than ..how good it will be once we get his "change" injection.
We have made alot of mistakes ..... but now these people are going to discredit our troops efforts in the war against terrorism.
Why ? Dont they see how dangerous this is.!? Leon Panedda ?? Are you kidding ?
I want thank all of our troops , and especialy the dedicated Navy security guys at GITMO!
I don't know enough about water boarding but I can imagine the discomfort. I don't believe it's torture though.
Also, there seems to be a void given to the perception of the 9/11 history here. We seem to customarily believe that what is happening today is the most important era in our lives only to move on to another 'most importmant' juncture.
The United States is the most idealistic country in the world. But, realistic measures are neccessary to achieve that idealism.
Thanks Michael
That should be enough.
RSS feed for comments to this post