CIA interrogator says he tortured Abu Zubaydah with the approval of higher-ups. He also says the information derived from the torture was useful, contrary to what's been reported elsewhere. Last, he says that we shouldn't be torturing people: ""We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing."
« Follow the Judges | Main | Deterrence Is Back »
True Torture Confessions
11 Dec 2007 07:54 am
Comments (46)
I have a nice centrist solution to the whole problem. We allow the CIA to torture people, but only phone company executives. My plan has something for everybody. Those people that Joe Klein calls "civil rights extremists" will be happy to see the telcos getting what they deserve, and the Bush base will be happy to see blood, any blood.
If you tortured someone, wouldn't you have to tell yourself that it provided useful information. He's not credible about the results. Of course, the tapes would have answered the question, which is probably why they don't exist any more.
Yet more evidence that consequentialism is a poor tool for analyzing whether or not we should have a policy of torture.
This guy isn't agonizing over the possibility that he wasted his time; his problem is our problem: torture is a moral abomination however useful it is.
We're making a mistake to argue that torture doesn't work. Most probably it works in some cases and not in others. That should not be the issue. The argument should be simply that torture is self-evidently wrong and should not be condoned even if it works and even if it is proven that it can prevent major catastrophes. And yes, I'd rather die with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks.
___________________________
Interesting line in the article comes when he quotes the guy as saying that given the chance he would kill every jew and American, and then says, that is when he decided that waterboarding was necessary.
But of course the way to prevent a man in captivity from killing people is to do what is necessary to prevent him from being released. This is a complete non-sequitor in this context since the justification was supposed to be that it was the only way to get actionable information.
But the idea that waterboarding was approved because the person said something that indicated he was vile does seem more plausible.
I'd rather die with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks.
___________________________
Posted by Aris | December 11, 2007 8:54 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Has your family been polled on this sentiment?
On the one hand, he did torture. On the other, he is repentant and shows signs of a conscience and American values. This makes me wonder how many good Americans who wanted to dedicate their lives to their country we have damaged emotionally, psychology, morally and spiritually. Think about it. After 9/11, tons of Arab- and Muslim-Americans in colleges across the country were lining up at FBI and CIA recruiting stations at job fairs on campuses. At the same time we need more people who speak Arabic and understand Islam - the very people who would have an affinity for the cultures of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia - we are asking them to torture. And not just torture, but likely torture innocent people. This is just sick. This is not America. We're supposed to be the nation of Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass and so forth. We are supposed to be better than this.
On the one hand, he did torture. On the other, he is repentant and shows signs of a conscience and American values. This makes me wonder how many good Americans who wanted to dedicate their lives to their country we have damaged emotionally, psychology, morally and spiritually. Think about it. After 9/11, tons of Arab- and Muslim-Americans in colleges across the country were lining up at FBI and CIA recruiting stations at job fairs on campuses. At the same time we need more people who speak Arabic and understand Islam - the very people who would have an affinity for the cultures of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia - we are asking them to torture. And not just torture, but likely torture innocent people. This is just sick. This is not America. We're supposed to be the nation of Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass and so forth. We are supposed to be better than this.
He also says the information derived from the torture was useful...
Without any hard evidence at all, such assertions sound like bullsh*t to me.
I'd recommend the video on the abc site, if you have the time.
In addition to the stuff about torture; there's a lot of new evidence that contradicts the general perception of Zubaydah as something of an incompetent and lackey.
Has your family been polled on this sentiment?
Yes. We know we're mortal and that we will all die eventually. The question ought to be how we live out our short time on this planet. We can choose to supposedly minimize the risk of dying in an unlikely event by compromising our moral principles, or we can decide to live like civilized human beings, even if the latter position entails improbable risks to our security.
___________________________
In addition to the stuff about torture; there's a lot of new evidence that contradicts the general perception of Zubaydah as something of an incompetent and lackey.
Almost right. How about:
"In addition to the stuff about torture, the Bush-administration employee offered assertions with absolutely no verifiability that contradict the general perception of Zubaydah as something of an incompetent and lackey."
The people over at Kevin's seem to have a handle on it:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012675.php
James Gary,
Good grief. The guy's CIA, which is different from the White House. And all I said was that it's evidence, which in fact it is.
Of course I have no idea if what he says is true or if he was even involved in the Zubaydah story. In the same way, I have no idea whether or not Iran has or ever had a nuclear program or whether or not someone named Abu Zubaydah actually exists. I rely on the assertions of intelligence agencies for that kind of stuff, and this guy--ABC News seems to think--worked for one. Moreover, he's offering admissions against his own interest and criticizing the Bush administration's policies.
But I'd encourage you watch the video and evaluate his credibility for yourself.
But I'd encourage you watch the video and evaluate his credibility for yourself.
It's irrelevant whether Zubaydah was an incompetent or lackey. It's also irrelevant whether torture worked in his case or not, or whether it works generally speaking or not. The question on whether to use torture should be, "Is it worth it"? Is it worth it to compromise every principle which defines us as civilized in order to -- supposedly -- ensure our security?
___________________________
Aris,
Not sure why you quoted me, but . . .
Yes, as I said above (at 8:52), torture is a moral abomination and should be opposed on those grounds.
The new information about Zubaydah is interesting on its own merits and is relevant to all sorts of debates (including the debate about what the best arguments against torture are and what arguments are less useful).
the Bush-administration employee
He would have been a civil servant, not a political appointee. Also, unless he had just joined the CIA within a year of when he led the Zubaydah capture, he would have been a Clinton Administration civil servant too. And also he is a former civil servant, since he apparently no longer works for the government.
In any case, while the information is interesting, itis really unnecessary to show that Zubaydah was a very important al Qaeda leader, contrary to what Kevin Drum and Matthew have asserted based on the idiotic Ron Suskind book. All you have to do is read the 9/11 Commission report to know that.
Well, now that Al has weighed in on the world-historical significance of Abu Zubaydah, I know I can safely dismiss the notion....
Seriously--Ron Suskind is not an idiot and his work cannot be dismissed out of hand (although he may possibly of course be proved mistaken about this guy). We have some really fascinatingly deep cognitive dissonance going on here.
I'm not a shrink, but considering that Abu Zubaydah is known to be a bit of a schizo, couldn't it be that he was both unimportant and important? Like, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays he's Abu. On Tuesdays and Thursdays he's Wild and Crazy Mahmoud, the guy AQ suicide bombers go to their last strip club with. On Saturdays and Sundays, he's Little Susie Q, a blond girl from Texas who is into lollipops, Hello Kitty and anal sex. I'm only half-kidding.
This is the most interesting part of the interview, in my opinion:
"It wasn't up to individual interrogators to decide, 'Well, I'm gonna slap him.' Or, 'I'm going to shake him.' Or, 'I'm gonna make him stay up for 48 hours.'
"Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News.
"The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate."
"I'd rather die with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks."
Duly noted. We'll be sure and let bin Laden know that you were part of the crowd who opposed torturing his vampires. I think that should read rather nicely on your children's tombstone. May they RIP.
There's nothing like a lofty, transcendent principle, really, to secure one in eternity. In this case, it's a funny, ironic thing actually: that's exactly the same priceless logic that bin Laden used to put you there.
I am not sure anyone has actually read the interview.
Kiriakou did not torture anyone. The last two thirds of the interview is entirely second hand information.
The interview was terrible. Kiriakou was part of the capture. Zubaydah was terribly wounded, miraculously recovered, then taken to a third country for interrogation. Kiriakou returned to the states to another job.
Suskind and Kiriakou agree on most points except: the degree of abuse in the torture and the quality of the information. The information for both is second hand.
I'd edit Aris's sentiment slightly:
"I'd rather take the chance of dying with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks."
resh quakes in fear. Better to torture a thousand prisoners than take a very slight chance that one of them might have info about the ticking time bomb he imagines Osama has planted beneath his Ford Excursion.
We'll be sure and let bin Laden know that you were part of the crowd who opposed torturing his vampires. I think that should read rather nicely on your children's tombstone. May they RIP.
You know, I have no doubt you will. Because judging from your post, you're the sort of unprincipled coward who would have no problem committing any reprehensible act in order to maintain the illusion of safety.
___________________________
Resh, we're Americans. Big pussies like you are not welcome.
Hi Rm-
You've slightly misstated my maxim:
it should read, better that we allow a thousand innocent kids to die than to pee upon our soi-disant moral purity by waterboarding angels like Zawahiri et al.
Oh, wait. That's your maxim, isnt it. My bad.
PS. How's the little league team in Algeria coming along today? I hope you didnt buy the uniforms yet.
"Duly noted. We'll be sure and let bin Laden know that you were part of the crowd who opposed torturing his vampires. I think that should read rather nicely on your children's tombstone. May they RIP."
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
More to the point "Give me liberty or give me death"
Just because your a coward, doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Back to the topic, of course the torturer thinks the information was useful. It's how he sleeps at night. If he believed he did it for naught he'd have an even larger burden on his conscious.
I'd edit Aris's sentiment slightly: "I'd rather take the chance of dying with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks."
Good edit. Indeed, the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are so slight as to be of little consequence to everyday life.
It's hard to read something like resh's comment and not despair for the future of civilization. I'm certain resh and his ilk were as reprehensible before the Bush era as they are now. But at least they were hiding and they knew that letting anyone know how twisted they really are inside was socially unacceptable. The fact that they feel so comfortable now expressing themselves, indulging their psychopathy with such pride and self-righteousness is truly scary -- much more scary than terrorists.
___________________________
Well, I'm personally pretty skeptical about whether we actually got any useful information by torturing those Islamists, since all the resulting "national alerts" seem to have turned out to be hoaxes.
On the other hand, I think the new precedent we've set in instituting officially-sanctioned governmental torture in America might prove quite useful down the road a little.
For example, I suspect we'll uncover an enormous amount of extremely important information when we eventually round up and torture all the AIPAC leaders, as well as all the major financial donors to AIPAC and its various affiliated organizations...
I think the point is more that the use of torture has no effect one way or the other of your or anyone else's chances of dying in a terrorist attack. This is especially true when you think of the alternatives to torture, which are more likely to prevent terrorist attacks.
What we're really discussing is whether torture makes us feel better about our safety from terrorist attack. Certainly I'm sure there are plenty of people who sleep easier knowing that other people are being tortured ("The Bad Sleep Well"). Do we really think that the "peace of mind" of a few ignoramuses is worth torturing over?
I'd rather die with my family in a terrorist attack rather than condone using torture to prevent terrorist attacks
That's fine. But I would rather have some water poured on a terrorist's face for 35 seconds than my family be blown up.
Now, how do you propose to communicate to the terrorists to blow up your family instead of mine?
Now, how do you propose to communicate to the terrorists to blow up your family instead of mine?
Al, you're an infamous psychopath from Kevin Drum's site, but I thought that even psychopaths were capable of coherent thought. This doesn't even make any sense.
Let me try to explain the argument so even you and your understudy resh can understand it: You're going to die; your family and your children and everyone you've ever cared for, and everyone you've ever known is going to die. Eventually we will all die. There is no such thing as a safe existence. There is no such thing as total security. All we have is a few years on this planet, and it would be nice to spend them living in a civilized world. Obviously -- do I actually have to state this? -- nobody wants to die a violent death, by terrorists or criminals or in any other way. But to become so terrified of any danger as to decide to make the world an ugly, authoritarian, repressive one, will not provide you with any real security. What you'll end up with is spending whatever years you have in a far more unpleasant environment, in perpetual fear, and with fewer liberties. And, if you do have a conscience -- sorry, I know you don't, so I don't mean to be rubbing it in, but let's say you do -- you'll be tortured by the knowledge that you've become a monster, just so you can have the illusion that you're safe.
___________________________
"The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
Yeah, right. Maybe, just maybe a highly-placed guy would have operational details on two or three active plots, but dozens? That's fantasy cognitive dissonance land.
"That's fine. But I would rather have some water poured on a terrorist's face for 35 seconds than my family be blown up."
Yes, because the situation is that black and white. If a terrorist gets tortured you live, if not you die. There aren't innocent people being tortured. Information given under torture is 100% accurate. People aren't making things up in an effort to stop the torture inflicted on them. Torture isn't expressly forbidden by US law. It's such a useful technique police should be able torture suspects to get confessions. I sure don't want a murderer going free, just because we weren't tough enough with him
Putting aside the compelling moral arguments against torture for the moment, there are compelling realpolitik arguments against how it has been used by the Bush administration:
a) First, is that it has very high costs. If you allow your government to torture, then in a few years you should not be surprised to find it torturing you. We have all seen how the Bush Administration has routinely crapped on the Bill of Rights with legal sophistry. AG Gonzales drew no distinction between treatment of US citizens considered to be "terrorists" vs foreign actors.
b) As we saw with the British organization for terrorism in WWII (SOE), real terrorists can take measures to negate most of the gains from torture:
(1) suicide pills
(2) compartmentation of info and knowledge via the cell organization and "need to know"
(3) hidden alarm signals in communications
(4) rapid restructuring of terrorists cells (rapid exfiltration of key personnel, assumption of new identities, use of false versus real names in operations,etc.)
(5) delay of enemy exploitation of captures via false cover stories.
(6) Covert monitoring of agents at all time to ensure the leadership rapidly knew if anyone was captured. (That is , you have several agents in a cell carrying out operations -- sabotage, assassinations,etc. Then you have a separate agent -- unknown to the active agents -- who has no connection with the operational cell and whose job is just to monitor agents of the operational cell without their knowledge. )
The British asked their agents to merely hold out for 48 hours after capture with intricate, strongly rehearsed false stories so the cell leadership would have time to reorganize.
c) The argument used by Alan Dershowitz , the right wing producers of 24, etc to justify torture -- the "ticking nuclear bomb" scenario -- is the argument of idiots. No competent organization capable of pulling off that strike would allow itself to be interdicted by a few captures of personnel.
The people smuggling the bomb into the US would not know that it is a bomb. They would not know the people to whom they delivered it much less where the bomb is headed. The people detonating the bomb would not know where it is coming from -- only the rendevous point. The few key personnel in a foreign country would be kept in isolation --not wandering around to be captured -- while the op was in progress. The people who built the bomb would not know where it had gone or who had picked it up.
d) The behavior of the Bush Administration is turning powerful nations against the USA -- people who are far more powerful than Al Qaeda could ever hope to be.
The Nazis used torture in response to terrorist attacks during a major war against major powers. The Bush administration is using torture in a war of choice to seize oil deposits and panders to billionaire supporters of Israel who dump large sums into America's political parties.
It is one thing to resort to extreme measures out of desperation -- when your back is against the wall. It is something else to use such measures to protect the investments of a few wealthy patrons.
Not only are we creating more terrorists than we are stopping, we are creating far more powerful enemies -- nations covertly uniting against us because they are coming to see us as worst than Al Qaeda.
e) In the end, the Nazis found torture of limited value against British terrorists. What they did find helpful was use of terror in return -- i.e., reprisals. Whenever the insurgency pulled off a successful attack --e.g, SOE's assassination of Heydrich -- the Nazis simply rounded up a few hundred (thousand?) civilians in the vicinity and executed them. Pretty soon, civilians were rushing to the telephones to inform on any SOE groups in the areas.
In about a decade, the Weekly Standard and Fox News will probably be promoting the downward slide into plutocratic dictatorship by arguing for the use of reprisals if Americans ever wake up and resist the loss of their rights.
1) Note also that Dick Cheney and George Bush are using torture in defense of a Big Oil policy whereby the US consumer spends roughly $40 per GALLON for gasoline -- $3 per gallon at the pump and $37 per gallon on their income tax to pay for military operations in the Middle East.
2) Note that Dick Cheney and George Bush are willing to use inhumane measures while doing basically NOTHING to develop alternative energy sources and render the US independent of Middle Eastern oil.
3) The civilized world never excused nations in the past for inhumane actions even if the actions occurred in desperate circumstances and were arguably a military necessity.
How much less will that world excuse inhumane actions done simply out of greed and corruption?
4) I seriously doubt Al Qaeda has the resources to develop a nuclear bomb. But I think it is increasingly likely that another major power will hand them one.
Aris,
Yes, we will all die eventually. I'd prefer it to be later rather than sooner. And if the difference between dying later and dying sooner is a terrorist having water poured on his face for 35 seconds, I'd make that trade and wouldn't think that the world is any more "ugly, authoritarian, repressive" than I already think it is. I acknowledge that, as you stated above, you may feel that 35 seconds of water pouring makes the world "ugly, authoritarian, repressive", and that therefore you would rather die sooner rather than later if it came to those 35 seconds of water pouring making such a difference. My only question was how do we get the terrorists to only attack the people like you who aren't interested in making that tradeoff, rather than the people like me who are? I think it is a perfectly reasonable question.
(Also, to be clear, I used to be an "infamous psychopath from Kevin Drum's site" years ago, but I haven't commented there for a long time and any "infamous psychopath from Kevin Drum's site" posting as "Al" now is a faker.)
These articles seem to leave out the fact that Zubaida named three Saudi princes and the head of Pakastani air force as financial supporters who new about the plans for 9/11. In an amazing coincidence all four had tragic accidents and are no longer alive.
My only question was how do we get the terrorists to only attack the people like you who aren't interested in making that tradeoff, rather than the people like me who are? I think it is a perfectly reasonable question.
When I refer to you as a psychopath it may seem that I'm merely trying to insult you. But I actually use the term as a clinical description of your mental condition. You see, Al, the question you posed must seem reasonable to a person without a conscience and a fundamental sense of empathy, i.e. a psychopath. To me, however, it is not a reasonable question: I don't want anyone, including you, to suffer or die in order to keep me safe, whereas you're willing to do whatever it takes to other people for a sense of security -- which, ironically, is at best illusory. You would trade the safety of my family for yours, while I would never consider that reasonable. For people like you it's always about tradeoffs, and you don't realize that each bargain you strike is a Faustian one.
I don't know if you have an ember of conscience left, but I find it interesting that you keep referring to waterboarding as water being poured on one's face for 35 seconds. Is this for your sake, to ease any pangs of guilt over what is by any criterion torture, or for our benefit? In any case, I'm willing to play the game: Let's agree that waterboarding is not torture, just "35 seconds underwater." What if it doesn't work? What then? Are you comfortable with doing whatever it takes, well and above the "35 seconds underwater" or do you have a limit? I'm honestly curious -- and I think this is a perfectly reasonable question.
___________________________
If the president announced that he was order the strangling of cute puppies because it prevented terror attacks, Al would no doubt be all for it and claim that anyone who thought otherwise was endangering the lives of americans.
How about this? To prevent terror attacks, we have a nationa lottery, and the person picked become the terror scapegoat whom we stone to death? Would that be ok?
Also, I can sell you a stone that will keep away bears, as well as a rabbit's foot which will bring you good luck.
In the end, we're not using torture because it's useful. We're using torture because it makes Al feel better about himself. Which, when you think about it, makes him a pretty creepy person.
In the end, we're not using torture because it's useful. We're using torture because it makes Al feel better about himself.
This is quite true. I'm extremely reluctant to discuss torture as a pragmatic method of getting information, because it is as beyond the pale as strangling puppies. However, if we are to rationally address reducing terrorism (eliminating it is as impossible as eliminating any other form of violence) we have to take a long-term approach. That involves cultivating sources, gaining trust, influencing people and making friends -- how many Soviets spied for the West because we were perceived as the good guys? Even if torture was an effective method of extracting information (we know it's not, but let's assume it is) it would be information for specific incidents only. We'd be winning battles but losing the war.
___________________________
Here's the sequence.
1) CIA in the NIE says Iran stopped its program.
2) Cheney releases CIA tapes story.
3) This guy comes back, says torture works and saves lives, but I personally don't want to do it anymore (gee, thanks, guy!) So the tapes don't matter.
Everybody's happy.
Oh, and:
4) Morons on blog argue torture all over again.
Everybody's happy.
Look, stupids. Nobody ever said that nobody ever tortured NEVER gave out useful information. What is said is that torture as policy is not productive in general, and not justified by "one off" hypothetical cases, and not cost effective compared to other methods in either case.
You cannot win a "moral" argument on torture because you run into morons like Al who will always hang you on the "if it saves one life" crap - which is the scenario morons always use to ignore the overall issue of cost-benefit. Because the real argument against that concept is: "what if it kills one innocent life in the process?" That puts you back to square one. So the argument is bullshit, but since you use it to support the rest of your liberal causes, he's got you.
If you can beat that one, they still have you because morality is totally subjective. They can prance around claiming they're more moral because they're out to "stop terrorists from killing your kids" while you're a "terrorist lover". You can't win that one, either. Look at the polls.
Or they have you by citing Chris Ford's favorite argument: "You kill and maim people in war, how is that different from torturing them in war"? You can't answer that one either because he's right - except of course for the little fact that combat is a totally different set of circumstances. namely that you have an armed combatant able to defend himself and not under your control and therefore not giving you any other option but to kill or maim him. Which is completely different from and totally irrelevant to torturing a prisoner.
Torture is incorrect because it doesn't work in sufficient cases to make it useful for intelligence gathering (as opposed to extracting "confessions" a la the Inquisition and US "terrorist" legal cases) and is less effective than other methods even when it could be made to work. It's stupid, incompetent and prone to be done for reasons of sadism rather than effectiveness.
People like Al, Mixner, Fred and Ford who argue for torture are stupid, incompetent, sadistic morons.
That's the argument.
Actually, the killing in combat argument, even of innocent civilians, is easily refuted. I just read the NYRB review of Generation Kill and I've so I've got some fresh images to work with.
In one gruesome incident during the initial invasion of Iraq, a US Marine is checking out a car that was shot full of holes approaching a checkpoint. The Marine noticed a wide-eyed little girl huddling in the back seat. He checked her out to see what sort of medical attention she needed and the whole top of her head came off and her brains fell out onto the street.
This girl's death was a horrible thing and in all likelihood was morally unjustifiable. However, only a very sick person would think that the incidental death of this particular girl (none of the Marines who shot up her car intended to harm her, though of course, they did) was morally indistinguishable from several Marines intentionally plucking that little off the sidewalk, cutting off the top of her head, and dumping her brains out in order to terrify and pacify the local Iraqi village. In making moral judgements, intent matters--and not in the ends justify the means way.
I'm not sure that Mixner is stupid, incompetent, or sadistic, or that he deserves to be lumped in with the other three. I think Mixner has just studied too much moral philosophy and has thus lost whatever innate moral compass he once might have had. He would argue that in both cases above the girl is just as dead (the utilitarian argument) and we should only judge her death by the relative good or harm that results from it.
I find it curious that the news media hasn't caught onto why the CIA tapes were destroyed. The need is not to protect the CIA -- it's to protect George Bush and Dick Cheney from prosecution by President Hillary Clinton.
Well, maybe just protect George. I suspect George W is going to give Dick Cheney a blanket pardon -- for anything Dick might have done over the past 8 years -- about 20 minutes before George leaves the White House. Ole Scooter might even get that felony conviction lifted --so long as ole Scooter keeps his mouth shut.
How did George W's father put it --when he pardoned Casper Weinberger (and Negroponte and about 14 other high level military and CIA officers) -- so that those guys wouldn't have to snitch on George the Elder's involvement in Iran Contra?
Ah yes, the pardons were issued in order to "avoid the criminalization of policy differences."
Of course, George W can't pardon himself. Damm, those Founding Fathers fucked up.
Anyone notice how George W also uses his father's "rope a dope" tactics? Set up a "criminal investigation" which allows you to duck out of answering questions in the political arena because of the "ongoing investigation" , drag out said investigation for 2 or 3 years and then run it off into the weeds when the heat has died down.
As always, the nest question to be asked people who support Bush's position on torture is: when do you think torture should NOT be used in interrogating POWs, and who should make that decision -- and should one man (no matter where he is in the chain of command) be allowed to make it by himself?
In the case of Zubaydah, even if we assume that Kirakou's account is correct and that the account of Suskind's sources was not, then -- well, let's quote Andrew Sullivan ( http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-witnessing.html#more ):
"The nature of the attacks that Kiriakou says the CIA foiled because of torture was not cataclysmic. It was not the nuclear ticking time-bomb. It was more operational information, and -- insofar as some attacks were, according to Kiriakou, foiled -- 'To the best of my recollection, no, they weren't on US soil. They were overseas.'
"If we are to have a serious debate about what to do about torture, all these facts need to be taken into consideration. The facts are these: the president of the United States directly broke the law and the Geneva Conventions by authorizing the torture of a prisoner; he did so in the absence of any actual knowledge of any actual, dire threat to the United States; the evidence of the torture has been destroyed.
"The Zubaydah torture does not fit the category laid out by Charles Krauthammer as the criterion for legalized torture. It was done not because we knew something and needed to nail it down. It was done because we knew nothing and needed to find out more. The attacks it allegedly foiled were not catastrophic and not on the mainland of the United States...
"More important, the direct authorization of torture techniques by the president was not contained. Instead, incidents of torture and abuse were subsequently documented throughout the theater of war. We have evidence of over a hundred deaths in interrogation, of which less than a score have been acknowledged by the Pentagon as examples of torturing-to-death. Whatever moral decision we come to with respect to the torture of Abu Zubaydah, it is essential to understand that no authorized act of torture stands alone. By sending a clear signal that the United States has crossed the Rubicon of torture, the commander-in-chief told the entire military and intelligence world that the gloves are off."
Yup. Fred Hiatt got that entirely correct in a Washington Post piece back in June 2004 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39343-2004Jun13.html ): the moment you authorize torture on as fuzzy a ground as it was authorized for Zubaydah, you've set us right on that slippery slope to routine torture of ALL POWs in this war, regardless of the morally -- and strategically -- disastrous overall consequences of such a move.
"I'm not sure that Mixner is stupid, incompetent, or sadistic, or that he deserves to be lumped in with the other three."
Yes, he should. He's been far more emphatic about the value of torture than anybody except Ford (who's simply a raving nutcase.)
"none of the Marines who shot up her car intended to harm her, though of course, they did"
And they didn't give a shit later, either. And shooting up a car full of civilians is precisely a war crime. That bullshit excuse of "well, they didn't stop and we thought we were in danger of a car bomb" is just that. Some of these bozos have been known to open up on cars several hundred feet away from them or traveling in the opposite direction.
The Marines were known to shoot up BUSSES full of people trying to flee in the initial invasion because they THOUGHT that MAYBE some of them might be concealed Saddam Fedayeen. Or at least that was the excuse.
My point was that an armed combatant is not under your control. You have no choice but to kill or maim him, given the weapons in your possession. This is entirely different from torturing a prisoner, which is precisely why the Geneva Conventions outlaw it.
But this has nothing to do with shooting up civilians. That is a war crime, whether it is deliberate or "accidental" - because of a poor set of rules of engagement which deny civilians adequate protection - which makes it NOT "accidental".
Comments closed December 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Contrary to office gossip Cindy in accounting is a fantastic lay. Much pleasure was in fact derived from my dalliance. However, my wife didn't give permission and disputes allegations she did. I'm better than this and shouldn't have done it.
Posted by steve duncan | December 11, 2007 8:28 AM