So you think the president as CIC shouldn’t condone torture when the subject is a US citizen, even if the potential victims are still US citizens?

How is that protecting Americans? Explain that to the families of the domestic terrorist’s victims.

From logic. … Do you not think the countrymen of the men we’ve wrongly tortured (and sometimes killed) would not have similar anger against the country that did that to them?

I would take it even further than that. Torture is *evil*, it is what the Bad Guys do. When we do it — when we excuse it, when we *endorse* it — we become Darth Vader, the obvious embodiment of Evil. We make people opposed to us look like the Good Guys. Of course it’s a wonderful recruiting tool — lots of people (especially the young kind who make good soldiers) *want* to fight Darth Vader, they *want* to be a Good Guy and fight the Bad Guys.

How could you expect it to be otherwise? Unless, of course, you yourself would rather be on the winning side than on the side of undoubted moral Good.

Yes, but the president is also CIC, which means protecting American lives.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about CIC powers overriding his oath to protect the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t even grant the CIC the power to go to war without Congressional approval. What makes you think he has the power to completely supersede Congressional law?

I’d also like to know where this “recruiting tool” meme comes from.

From logic. When the 9/11 bombers attacked us we went into a psycho rage of hatred toward Muslim’s and their countries. Military recruitment went up. We were so blinded by emotions that we cheered on a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you not think the countrymen of the men we’ve wrongly tortured (and sometimes killed) would not have similar anger against the country that did that to them?

Therefore, if we defeat the jihadists their recruiting will go way down, like what happened to the Nazis after WWII.

We had to kill roughly six million Germans (or 10% of their population) before their spirit and war making abilities were crushed. Are you proposing a similar “solution” here? I, for one, think it’d be easier and less morally reprehensible to stop giving Muslims excuses (like invading their lands, supporting their brutal dictators and torturing their people) to kill us.

He says that we can use torture in a selective and safe way to enhance our security.

Since torture – outside of simply murdering the prisoners – is the worst thing we can do to them, I would say he’s implying that “anything goes.” Also, the idea that torture is safe is laughable, since we know detainees died during their interrogations.

I’d draw the line where people are US citizens

Why would you draw the line there? If another 9/11 were at stake, why would a local terrorist be any different from a foreigner?

First, there are no specifics. We don’t know how important the “actionable intelligence” was, nor how serious the plots allegedly uncovered were.

This is true, but only because the relevant information was blacked out by Obama. If it hadn’t been, then we could discuss your questions.

I’d also like to know where this “recruiting tool” meme comes from. I just don’t see the logic in it. Logically, the best recruiting tool is success. Therefore, if we defeat the jihadists their recruiting will go way down, like what happened to the Nazis after WWII. So far, the evidence is that al Qaeda-style jihadism is struggling even within the world of radical Islam. Recruiting was way up in the aftermath of 9/11—the jihadists’ greatest triumph.

You say, “Thiessen seems to imply that anything goes as long as it improves our security.” Of course he doesn’t say or even imply such a thing. Just the opposite. He says that we can use torture in a selective and safe way to enhance our security. If you disagree with this, then, fine. Go ahead and do it. But don’t distort his words to prove your point because that just won’t work.

AC: I’d draw the line where people are US citizens, which means that I wouldn’t support torturing McVeigh or anyone else you mention. Therefore, I hereby denounce Padilla’s torture. Happy now?

This is incorrect. We elect the President to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the lives of American citizens.

This passage is a quote from one the testimonies:

“…

There then followed a period of about one month with no questioning. Then, about two and a half or three months after I arrived in this place, the interrogation began again, but with more intensity than before. Then the real torturing started. Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow. Measuring perhaps in area 1m x 0.75m and 2m in height. The other was shorter, perhaps only 1m in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. I was also repeatedly slapped in the face. As I was still shackled, the pushing and pulling around meant that the shackles pulled painfully on my ankles.

I was then put into the tall back box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. The box was totally black on the inside as well as the outside. It had a bucket inside to use as a toilet and had water to drink provided in a bottle. They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe. When I was let out of the box I saw that one of the walls of the room had been covered with plywood sheeting. From now on it was against this wall that I was then smashed with the towel around my neck. I think that the plywood was put there to provide some absorption of the impact of my body. The interrogators realized that smashing me against the hard wall would probably quickly result in physical injury.

During these torture sessions many guards were present, plus two interrogators who did the actual beating, still asking questions, while the main interrogator left to return after the beating was over. After the beating I was then placed in the small box. They placed a cloth or cover over the box to cut out all light and restrict my air supply. As it was not high enough even to sit upright, I had to crouch down. It was very difficult because of my wounds. The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful. I think this occurred about 3 months after my last operation. It was always cold in the room, but when the cover was placed over the box it made it hot and sweaty inside. The wound on my leg began to open and started to bleed. I don’t know how long I remained in the small box, I think I may have slept or maybe fainted.

I was then dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds was very painful. I vomited. The bed was then again lowered to a horizontal position and the same torture carried out again with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. On this occasion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress.

I was then placed again in the tall box. While I was inside the box loud music was played again and somebody kept banging repeatedly on the box from the outside. I tried to sit down on the floor, but because of the small space the bucket with urine tipped over and spilt over me. I remained in the box for several hours, maybe overnight. I was then taken out and again a towel was wrapped around my neck and I was smashed into the wall with the plywood covering and repeatedly slapped in the face by the same two interrogators as before.

I was then made to sit on the floor with a black hood over my head until the next session of torture began. The room was always kept very cold.

This went on for approximately one week. During this time the whole procedure was repeated five times. On each occasion, apart from one, I was suffocated once or twice and was put in the vertical position on the bed in between. On one occasion the suffocation was repeated three times. I vomited each time I was put in the vertical position between the suffocation.

…”

How is this not torture?

“one month with no questioning”! It’s lucky all the clocks on those ticking bombs suspended themselves until the torture was resumed.

It is clear from the ICRC report that they regard the detainees’ testimonies as compelling and consistent. To that extent they have a great deal more credibility than the weasel worded justifications and outright lies provided by members and officials, including legal officials, of the Bush administration.

We all know the US has done much worse than this and encouraged others to do worse still. What is critical is less the degree and extent of the torture and more the legitimisation of it. The United States has unilaterally absolved itself of solemn treaty commitments. On what basis should its promises be trusted in future?

How will we spin this myth together?
How will we hand this story down?

“We” won’t, except to ourselves.
However, I’m willing to bet that there are many more people fighting the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere and with more bitter determination than there would have been if the US had not so utterly destroyed its own moral authority.

Torture is wrong, absolutely wrong, whether or not it “produces results” and whether or not those are results that we want or intended. Our morality and humanity are determined by our own actions, not those of our adversaries.

We were attacked by Tim McVeigh, a US citizen. Should we have treated him the same way we treated KSM et al? To this day there are still questions about possible accomplices. Have these accomplices been laying low, patiently waiting and planning for another deadly strike?

Perhaps we ought to have subjected Richard Jewell to enhanced interrogation techniques in order to learn more about his plot to kill Americans at the Atlanta Olympics. Oh, wait… he was innocent. Umm, nevermind.

Maybe Stephen Hatfill knows more than he let on with regards to the anthrax attacks, which killed 5 Americans. Do you advocate holding him without due process and subjecting him to a little harmless waterboarding?

Maybe you object. But why? Not into subjecting US citizens to such treatment? Jose Padilla is as natural-born a citizen as you or I (I assume you’re a citizen). Will you denounce his ill-treatment?

I’d love to know where and how you draw the line.

Hm, I thought the oath was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. At least that’s what the Constitution says.

Nobody says that Thiessen is unbaiased…. One has to consider the content of what he’s saying and refute that. I haven’t seen you do that at all. I haven’t seen anyone here do that at all.

OK, I’ll do it. First, there are no specifics. We don’t know how important the “actionable intelligence” was, nor how serious the plots allegedly uncovered were. We’ve seen several such “plots” that really amounted to little more than idle chatter. Without more, we can’t judge his claims. (Indeed, his claim that waterboarding KSM in 2003 averted the Library Tower plot in LA seems demonstrably false, since it was foiled in 2002–to the extent it was a plot to begin with.)

Second, we don’t know whether this information, and perhaps more information, would have been accessed without the “enhanced” techniques. Just because we got some information by one method doesn’t mean we couldn’t have gotten it–and perhaps more–by other methods.

Third, Thiessen’s cost-benefit analysis looks only at benefits, not costs. Our endorsement of these techniques serves as a recruiting tool for those who want to harm us. Our failure at Abu Ghraib to uphold the principles we said we stood for resulted in people joining the insurgency and cost American lives. Also, the torture of al-Libi in Egypt resulted in his false confession of a link between Saddam and al-Queda, which the administration used to bolster its case for war. So you can’t just look at the instances where torture gets good information; you also have to look at when it gets bad information and/or results in blowback.

Fourth, Thiessen seems to imply that anything goes as long as it improves our security. If that were the case, this nation would never have gotten off the ground. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, and the rest could have lived much more securely under the British, but they though there were values worth risking their lives for. I would rather live in a marginally less save nation that stands for something than live in perfect security in a nation that stands for nothing.

But Thiessen makes one thing clear: we tortured. He thinks it’s justified in the name of security, but that doesn’t make what we did not torture.

You want to discount Thiessen’s claims because he challenges your position, not because of anything substantive. Your objections only amount to “the road not taken” and this will usually be a better road than the one we’re on today. You’re saying that intelligence info can be manipulated for political ends. This is undoubtedly true. But it’s just one more argument in my favor. If we had the information, then we could debate whether it was manipulated or not. How would you describe the blacking-out of the the pertinent info in the torture memos? Could this have a political end? I say it does, since it could show that Bush did the right thing.

Obama has blacked-out the parts of the torture memos that deal with Thiessen’s claims, so, in this limited sense they are unverifiable. But I say that his claims are verifiable, if Obama had released the information. Then we could debate the points you raise. But even then, we’d be using hindsight. The point is to judge the decisions the Bush admin made using the info they had available at the time. The fact that Omaba declined to release the info makes me suspect that they were correct, but I don’t know. Of course. I reserve the right to change my opinions when the information does come out and so should you.