The torture debate after Bush

Remove all ads!

Yesterday John McCain said that the US tortured during the Bush years and torture is a violation of international law. He also said that it made America less safe. He would or could only go so far. Being a Republican politician after all, and given the mood of the base, it apparently wasn't an expedient (or doable) thing to mention during the presidential campaign.

​

Well, he is right. The evidence for that is by now, largely thanks to the efforts of the ACLU, out in the open. We know of water boarding, mock executions, threats to rape or kill family, beatings, homicides etc. pp. ... We also have the memos.

So it is torture, and it violates international law. That would be the Geneva Conventions first of all, signed and ratified by the US. Then there is the Convention Against Torture signed by Ronald Reagan, and ratified by congress under Clinton. Both are thus law of the land in America.

If the US tortured, they did so in violation of the law of the land. Worse, also under Clinton, the War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed. In § 2441 (c)(1) that law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions". So what is a 'grave breach'? The commentary on the Geneva Conventions defines it as follows, and as far as legalese goes, that's about as clear as it can get:

So it is a criminal offence under the War Crimes Act. The War Crimes Act carries some stiff penalties for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, after all torture is a serious crime.

Oops. Well, I would be perfectly content with jail over this.

Of course, the background is that Eric Holder has given a (lifelong Republican affiliated, and reportedly very diligent and able) prosecutor the authority to investigate allegations of torture conducted by CIA employees and contractors during the Bush years. As torture is a crime, he might simply investigate the crime, start asking the two pertinent questions "why did this happen" and "who authorised it" and end up finding culprits - like Cheney's lawyers and the man himself. That, of course, is, in Cheney's world, a vile, politically driven prosecution. He is hellishly offended.

​

Thomas Paine: "... in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

 

I actually disagree with you on this. Obama needs to regain the support of his base and the quickest way to do that is to start jumping up and down and screaming "Bush Sucks". It won him an election, maybe it can distract people a little bit more so they don't notice how bad the fight for his healthcare plan is going.

 

Snook,
that has nothing to do with 'Bush sucks!'. What about the fact that crimes have been committed? Details, details ...? I always thought the R's were those law and order types, like this guy here (a near prophetic headline, btw).

Tal,
I want to believe ... and then, Watergate started small, too. Once the first officials really faced jail terms they started to rat on each other. It could happen here too, I certainly hope so, if guardedly.

 

This doesn't have much to do with Bush, but with Cheney, although he has already tried to throw Bush under the bus on this issue.

Wow, that seems like so long ago now...probably pre-2000 days for most Republican types. And I don't think they abandoned the Law and Order talking point because of GWB.

Now Cheney, that guy doesn't give a flip about the law, or the Constitution. He's a Nixon left-over. Remember, "if the president does it, it's not illegal."

 

WTF! He spoke out AGAINST torture every time the topic came up. How do you interpret "I am against torture in any form"?

... and you say you're not biased. Stating that republicans are stupid is quite biased in my book -- perhaps I misunderstood your meaning (being a republican and blind and all that).

 

I'm not so sure about this. Obama hasn't exactly seemed in a rush to please his base so far. I don't know, it may turn into something, but I won't hold my breath.

Umm, Tal, at least 60% of the Dem ads and talking points I saw durring the election were comparing McCain to Bush and 'failed policies' (mostly economic). That's the same thing. The other 40% were the opposite, promising a bright and happy future under Obama where everything is fixed (without much mention of how or who's paying, kinda like now).

Now, mind you, that's pretty much all a candidate with limited history of public service can do (meaning that Obama spent one term in the Senate compared to McCain with... how many?), but it's still not terribly reliable considering the history of politicians.

 

Once again, the Dems and Repubs will make Americans look like fools with their political in-fighting. Following through on any investigation into the CIA's torturing of terrorists is lose-lose for the US. Any politician worth their grit knows if they were in office when 911 hit and were facing national Security issues, they would of pulled the string on torturing terrosist suspects in order to protect the American people from attacks on the mainland. GUARANTEED!!!! And then they will deny it to the very end, until evidence is provided and then they will change their tunes and say it was for the good of the country. If they deny that, they are either lying there a$$e$ off or are in the wrong field. I hate that we waste major tax dollars on these types of inquiries, especially now that we are still in a financial crisis. Like anybody really cares if we piss off Al-Queda suspects? Like they aren't going to continue their Jihad or holy war or crazy Effing ways and continue to find ways to bomb our country's holdings and those of our allies. Seriously! Yes, I'm ranting....

 

T2,

I think he was talking about the demographic that is blind enough to take alarmist rhetoric at face value (the base), not all Republicans. I'm certain he wasn't talking about you. I'm also certain that Tal is aware that both parties have this demographic.

 

It is one thing to say 'I'm against torture!' and another to do something about it and say 'The Bush administration authorised torture - it has to stop because it is illegal, immoral and counter productive!'. He has done the former, but not the latter, likely because it would have alienated the GOP base. That's why his new found candour is a step in the right direction. He has now, for afaik the first time, openly acknowledged that Bush administration let people be tortured, and that it violated the law.

He came pretty well through the presidential election by saying that he's against torture - while the rest of his party and their faithful, strongly favoured torture (as strongly evidenced in the GOP primaries), but eagerly persuaded themselves that what the US did was not torture anyway, avoiding any contradictions. Of course McCain knew better, but he was dependent on Bush's support, and that bastard Karl Rove, and a base that didn't really trust him anyway, so he didn't push the issue. The doable strikes again.

To his credit, McCain did take the lead in sponsoring an anti-torture amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 in the U.S. Senate, which was opposed by the Bush White House. George W. Bush basically nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment from the Detainee Treatment Act with a signing statement. McCain stood next to President Bush at the signing of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. He did not object to the signing statement and when asked about the signing statement by reporters, McCain avoided any direct criticism.

And still McCain's stance is "we need to put this behind us... we need to move forward... we've got to move on." Of all persons, he certainly knows what this was about. And now he argues that no one should be held accountable for these crimes? I think that's lamentable. Also, I think that he merely does what's doable in the Republican party under Bush and the Republican party in its current state. Which is, sadly, not enough.

 

I would just like to chime in here and saying that my stance is quite similar to Tal's and from the same reasons. Before I started following American politics here and that made me more interested so I started following it a bit elsewhere as well I was of the opinion that it really didn't matter who was in the white house or ruled in congress. Democrat or Republican they were are equally bad. By following American politics I have learned that there are differences even in hell and even though I would be hard pressed to ever vote for a politician as right wing as the core of the democratic party they are slightly better than the Republicans who I see as little better than ultra-rightwing, nationalistic demogogues who gain votes by fear and misleading the ignorant and gullible.

 

Well, of course they are Joacqin, as most Americans are ignorant and gullible. That's how they like it. It makes life a lot easier when you can blame all of your problems on everybody else, judge everyone but yourself, take absolutely no responsibility for your actions or your lives and become the big, fat, lazy nation that we are today! Thank you baby-boomers! Way to change the face of the country! Our forefathers would be so proud!

 

The measure of effective communication is the preception of the reader, not the perception of the writer.

Tal, I took your statement to mean the majority of Republicans are sheep -- eager to follow whatever course their leaders send them down (perhaps lemmings is a more appropriate metaphor). This implies the majority of republicans have a serious a lack of thought and are unable to see truth from rhetoric (which is why I chose to use the term stupid -- I see very little difference in gullible and stupid). Your last sentence may have included most Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) into this, but I wasn't sure.

You also implied that most Republicans make their decisions based on rhetoric (after all that is the Secret Plan for Success) while the Democrats are looking for results right now. Your depiction of the Republican tactics was quite negative (which, well, they are quite negative -- but those tactics are common throughout US politics).

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that -- except that I think such practices are common on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats have just as nasty of tactics and are just as prone to being sheep (or lemmings); both sides want results right now.

I don't really mind the bias -- if I did I wouldn't be a member (which I became during the hayday of the anti-Bush posts). I don't believe I've ever thought the content of a post was unpatriotic (but then I'm big on the freedom of speech), I have found the delivery of the message to be ... questionable at times.

I do apologize for any offense ... well mostly apologize: your follow on comments were quite good and worth "waking the sleeping giant" (or dragon).

 

That's actually a good point. I think there are a few on both sides, like McCain, or even Obama, who still would have not gone along with that notion. But most of the policial herd, again on both sides, would have.

The thing that really galls me about this whole issue, is that 90 percent of the professionals in the CIA didn't go along with all this. Instead, "contractors" were brought in from the outside. Given that he was a true political creature, Cheney had have his fingers into everything. Sometimes it's really better just to let the professionals to their jobs.

 

Chandos, I surprise myself by saying this, but I think any politician that has aspirations for the Presidency needs to have the backbone to be able to consider this option. Only men/women of backbone can fill the seat of the President of the United States, efficently anyway, and need to be able to make that call when necessary, leaving personal feelings and past experiences, both bad or good, behind. Even moralistic judgements need to be able to be set aside in dire times, IMO, though that would vary form situation to situation. I know I would sleep better at night with someone with those abilities in office. But there are lines, don't get me wrong, but on the 'Was it torture debate?", I don't think they crossed them myself. I am NOT a Bush supporter, but in this case, it's the one thing that I believe they got right...

 

Actually Blades I believe men of character need to have the backbone to stick to their guns when being pressured to do something wrong. Torture is never the right thing to do and has a notoriously poor success rate. Success is two part -- the information must be accurate and it must be timely.

Part of the reason torture has a poor success rate is because information is always time sensitive. Once a person is caught both side start a countdown -- how long does it take for subject A to break versus the time to relocate and change plans. From what I recall the special forces assumes an eight hour to two day window before a person breaks under the most extreme torture. With more mild forms of torture breaking a person could take weeks.

Yes, leadership must make tough decisions (Truman had the toughest decision of them all). Sometimes the toughest decision is to ignore those who would steer you down an extreme path where there is little to be gained -- in the blind hope that little gain will be enough.

 

Your right about not being pressured T2, though I don't agree about the torturing of Terrorists. Anyone who is willing to kill thousands of my countrymen in one fatal blow, well I have no problem knowing they will meet a grisly, painful fate themselves if it would help, even only a miniscule amount, in stopping them from doing it. But that's just me. I don't expect everyone else to hold that view, I'm probably a little more hardened then others. I don't feel that the justification to go after anyone in the CIA who issued orders to torture Terrorists in order to better protect our country is there, as long as those officials who issued those orders beleived that they were protecting the country and making us safe.

 

Blades, it was torture.

And as for the president, no, 'Commander in Chief', having the power to order torture, no matter what's in the law (essentially that's what Yoo counselled) and that exercising it is virtuous because it is for the common good ... do you really believe that? I know that this is a charged thing to say, but I'll post it anyway: Cheney's stated rationale for torture as an instrument of statecraft sounds a lot like what Himmler famously told senior SS leaders at Posen - that they they all must sacrifice their higher sensitivities in the service of the state. Himmler was talking of the holocaust and putting comrades to the wall - Cheney is talking about torturing terrorist subjects. Both are crimes, of a different magnitude, but crimes nonetheless, and it's all about ends justifying the means.

The underlying utilitarianism is in my understanding alien to the American legal system. As Paine said, in America law is king, not man. The law prohibits torture, so it is not acceptable for a man to order it anyway, much less with impunity (so far).

Speaking of impunity, Cheney is afraid, it appears. Considering the punishment for torture in the war crimes act that's justified. And he is chatty. I hope he keeps on chatting, feeding his prosecutor in his vanity. Maybe he'll even give us a Col. Nathan R. Jessep moment. We all recall that Jessep in that movie was sent to jail. Rightly so. And Jessep had no idea why.

​