Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The best argument against releasing the "torture memos"?
This strikes me as the best argument ($) against releasing the "torture memos":
Critics denounce the “enhanced interrogation techniques” as morally reprehensible torture and want the details brought to light. But on Sunday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly criticized the White House over the release, arguing that it made CIA interrogators’ jobs more difficult.
Hayden, a Bush appointee to the top post in Langley, reportedly was one of four former directors — a mixture of Bush and Clinton appointees — to contact the White House last month in order to warn that the Obama administration’s decision to release the memos would compromise intelligence efforts. These four directors — Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch — are approaching the issue from the perspective of intelligence practitioners. Their argument is that the memos, which specifically detail now-banned interrogation methods, reveal more information on the threshold at which interrogators are legally obligated to stop. Subjects who are aware of these limits, the line of reasoning goes, are better positioned to endure the methods that are used.
In other words, the release of these memos has made lawful interrogation techniques less effective.
I understand and largely agree with the arguments against actually torturing people (although I am unimpressed with people who justify their moral position with the claim that torture "does not work"). I do not, however, understand the arguments for dispelling the possibiliity, which might well be a myth, that we might torture somebody. It seems to me that the reputation for torture actually would enhance the effectiveness of less cruel methods of interrogation. Indeed, I would think that the ideal situation, at least in the gathering of intelligence from captured bad guys, would be to have a reputation for brutality without actually having to be brutal.
19 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Apr 21, 11:31:00 AM:
First, Obama and his administration will NEVER miss an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. That was the main reason for the release of these memos.
Second, I don't know any CIA types, but I can't believe that CIA/military interrogators keep a manual at hand so one can tell another, "Bob, you can do that to him again but make sure he isn't chilly."
Third, what speaks loudest against releasing these memos is that they will form the basis of every claim of torture of anyone taken into custody by the US government in the future and, maybe, even by those currently in federal detention, e.g., "the guard wouldn't tell the guy in the next cell to turn his radio down and it was so loud that it was torture."
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 11:43:00 AM:
Link:
Every time Obama does something like this, I ask myself why and why now? This is something he didn't have to do ... and I suspect could have done in February ... or in May.
My paranoid side says its about disrupting -- and thereby controlling -- the news cycle. We're all going to chase this story for days ... to no end -- and keep our eye off other things -- like the budget and Obama's wanting a $100 million in cost saves.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 11:44:00 AM:
But did we cut any parts off, including heads, put it on YouTube or AlJez? were any woodchippers engaged and used?
C'mon folks, these are really bad people. They should wind up dead when we're done with them, and no one should know about it. Disclosing methods undermines our necessary means to get information we need.
I agree with Cheney ... rather than disclose how, disclose the outcome of the interrogations. How were we made safer, what was thwarted, etc.?
I used to have this argument all the time with pacifists when discussing things like torture, or death penalty, or killing another. I normally worked my way up to a simple scenario: they have your child, and what will happen up to and including death is something you neither wish to contemplate or live with. How far would you go?
If Obama releases this, he's a bigger asshole than I figured him for. But then again, here I am a bad person under Napolitano's framework, so what do I know?
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 11:47:00 AM:
... and I'm just a little curious whether the CIA experienced diminishing returns during the course of the 183 water boardings of that 'stain ... after awhile, you figure he learned that death was not coming.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 21, 12:09:00 PM:
Well duh. The point of interrogation is not to kill them. If you kill them, you ruined the interrogation. Dead men don't talk.
The 183 water boardings made his life so miserable that he broke his fidelity with God and his jihadi brothers to give up information rather than suffer #184-infinity.
*That's* the point of interrogation. Information and secrets.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Apr 21, 12:54:00 PM:
Wow, some of you all could have right at home in the minds of folk in Germany, say in the late 30s and till 45? Or with Beria, Uncle Joe & crew in Russia. Pinochet? Warms my heart.
Interesting sidebar: how much the legal profession is all up in this mess. Then again, most of the folk at the Wannsee Meeting in 1942 were either trained as lawyers.
BTW Daniel Pearl's family, which endowed the Pearl Project here at Georgetown after Marianne Pearl's book (and the rather mawkish Brangelina movie), is now convinced the facile "Khalid Sheikh Muhammad beheaded Danny" explanation from the Bush Admin. (actually from one of my college classmates) is bull and wants a another look.
Does torture "work" (and of course it's torture...come on)? Well, interesting, relevant but not critical info was garnered from the Tuskegee Experiments on black men--who were tortured by syphllis. Under that standard, sure. It works. Congratulations. So then I guess we're stuck really with Peggy Noonan's view: the memo shouldn't be released because it plain looks bad.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 12:55:00 PM:
I'm only going to say that releasing the memos wuite obviously made it more likely (and not less) that more severe means of interrogation will be necessary for the next guys from who we need urgent help. This was a thoroughly stupid decision.
The number of waterboardings was analyzed yesterday in some article I read, though I cannot remember where (you folks may have seen similar articles). Anyway, KSM told the terrible Red Cross (please, do your country a favor, and do not attend the upcoming Red Cross benefit or give them money!) that he was waterboarded 5 times. Squaring the CIA report of 183 times with his own estimate of five takes some arithmetic, but obviously the two parties to the events count differently. To me, it looked as if the CIA was counting administrations of poured water while KSM was counting actual events.
By davod, at
Tue Apr 21, 01:18:00 PM:
New Abu Ghraib Torture video *
The video is not pretty
*http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844/event_detail.asp
By davod, at
Tue Apr 21, 01:21:00 PM:
What does DNA have to do with torture?
"Not just dead, but tortured, we are told. Their unrecognizable bodies dumped at a roadside that had been wired with bombs.
According to an Iraqi military spokesman, the soldiers "were killed in a barbaric way."
The two young soldiers - both had been in Iraq but a few months - had been captured at a checkpoint on June 16 in an attack that killed a third comrade, Spc. David J. Babineau of Springfield, Mass.
If we are to properly understand - and fairly condemn - the revolting moral equivalencies that have sprung up regarding "violence begetting violence" in Iraq, the shocking deaths of Pfcs. Menchaca and Tucker would seem a proper place to start.
It is not the policy of the U.S. military to torture enemy combatants, certainly not to the point that DNA tests become necessary to determine which disfigured corpse is which.
It is not the policy of the U.S. military to behead captured enemies. Water-boarding and sleep deprivation strike us as bad and likely unproductive policies.
Disfiguring torture and beheading strike us as the acts of barbarians and monsters. There is equivalence in this?"
**
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0622thur1-22.html
By SR, at
Tue Apr 21, 01:33:00 PM:
Chambers,
It is a good thing your heart is warmed, but if you can't discern a difference between the current CIA interrogations and the historical ones you mentioned, go check out a history book from the library.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 01:58:00 PM:
That we choose to, or choose to not torture is irrelevant. One should never release information that is helpful to ones enemies, no matter how repugnant that information may be construed. Obama is the CinC, it's just unclear which side he is fighting for.
By , at
Tue Apr 21, 04:19:00 PM:
Usually CC, your comments are moronic. Lately though I think you've crossed the line. It's one thing to be inarticulate, many of us are, but compounding inarticulation with blind hatefulness is completely disgusting. Repeatedly calling commenters here Nazis or racists, as you often do, is reprehensible and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Andrew
By Escort81, at
Tue Apr 21, 06:08:00 PM:
BTW Daniel Pearl's family, which endowed the Pearl Project here at Georgetown after Marianne Pearl's book (and the rather mawkish Brangelina movie), is now convinced the facile "Khalid Sheikh Muhammad beheaded Danny" explanation from the Bush Admin. (actually from one of my college classmates) is bull and wants a another look.From wikipedia:
"In July 2007, (Mariane) Pearl filed suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York against terrorists and a bank which may have financed them, for their alleged roles in the abduction, torture and murder of her husband. Those named in the suit include Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Habib Bank. On October 24, 2007, the lawsuit seeking damages against al-Qaida, a dozen reputed terrorists and Pakistan's largest bank was dropped. Lawyers for Mariane Pearl noted that Habib Bank Limited and the other defendants in the case had not answered the lawsuit filed in July (although Habib Bank Limited had denied ever supporting terrorism), but they otherwise did not explain their reason for dropping the action. A spokesman for the lawyers has stated that the withdrawal was due to personal reasons and should have no bearing on the merits of the lawsuit."
also
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17617986/?GT1=9145
updated 1:21 p.m. ET, Thurs., March. 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl and was central to 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide that killed thousands of victims, said a revised transcript released Thursday by the U.S. military.
“I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan,” Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, released by the Pentagon.
“For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head,” he added.
Christopher, links for contrary new evidence? Hadn't heard the story that KSM isn't the perp from the standpoint of members of the Pearl family. Which members? And do they believe it was KSM plus others yet to be caught, or no on KSM altogether?
Or is this like saying Sirhan Sirhan didn't kill RFK, even after Rafer Johnson and Rosie Greer wrestled him to the floor (talk about being overmatched) after shots were fired?
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 21, 06:58:00 PM:
"Anyway, KSM told the terrible Red Cross (please, do your country a favor, and do not attend the upcoming Red Cross benefit or give them money!) that he was waterboarded 5 times."
That is extremely interesting.
I had heard before anecdotally that he had broken relatively quickly, but after hearing the latest numbers just assumed that my earlier source had been wrong.
183 v. 5 are absolutely irreconcileable. If your Red Cross story is true, there is deceit involved here.
Unfortunately, I trust the terrorist more than the administration in this case...
By JPMcT, at
Tue Apr 21, 11:41:00 PM:
Our actions in this matter, including the veiled threat by Obama to prosecute Justice Dept. attorneys who drew up the guidelines, do little more than make us feel superior when we look in the mirror at ourselves.
To our enemies, it makes us appear petty, fooish and weak.
Get ready for them to take advantage of this.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Apr 22, 02:41:00 AM:
That semiliterate goon sissy Chrissy is trying to cover his Jew-baiting ass once again by exploiting the gruesome death of Danny Pearl. But he gives the game away by comparing the interrogation of a murderous Islamofascist savage to the bloody slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews. Nice try, Chrissy, but you're a loser, like the rest of the antisemites. Watch Chrissy grovel when BO sucks up to the Holocaust-denying annihilationist Ahmedinejad.
By davod, at
Wed Apr 22, 08:04:00 AM:
Global War on Terror - Overseas Contingency Operation
Enhanced Interrogation-Torture
Does anyone else see symmetry.
By , at
Wed Apr 22, 10:31:00 AM:
KSM did tell the Red Cross he was waterboarded five times, according to the New Yorker. I found the reference in this Maguire blog post."As background, the New Yorker reported that KSM told the Red Cross he had been waterboarded five times."
By , at
Thu Apr 23, 10:21:00 PM:
According to a source quoted over at the Corner it does indeed appear that the CIA counts administrations of poured water while KSM was counting individual waterboarding events, as I speculated earlier. Hence, assuming they've got it correct, he was waterboarded five times. Happily, waterboarding worked admirably well at getting crucial information while sadly, the experience him did no damage.
