(Update)Thank God They’re Retired, Commie Wimps
In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding†under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal..[...].This is a critically important issue – but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation.
[...].Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule – the law – has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.
The other day, ABC’s The Blotter led an “exclusive’ with this bit of stenography:For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.
The meme that waterboarding was “was only used three times” has now entered the conservative group-mind unchallenged.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
November 4, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Key Senate Dem To Vote Against Mukasey…
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says he will vote against confirming attorney gene…
Comment by MichaelW —
November 4, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
You should probably at least read what you’re linking to, Mona. In fact, if you had bothered to look at the various posts we’ve done on the issue in the past week, you would have encountered this:
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I just read MichaelW’s post (had not before) and link. He rejects waterboarding as torture.
But his co-blogger’s post (which I did read because it was linked at memeorandum and is what I linked to in turn), does not condemn waterboarding; it walks a fine line justifying it if it is “only done to three,” as Michael’s co-blogger accepts as reported by ABC.
Does Michael, therefore, reject the Mukasey nomination?
Comment by Barry —
November 5, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Mona, people like MichaelW are not worth arguing with. You’re just stepping into their sh*tpatch.
We’re right, they’re wrong.
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Lance doesn’t condemn the technique, per se, but he does say this in the linked post:
To be fair, I don’t know what Lance’s stance is on waterboarding, although I gather that he agrees with the legal analysis I provided. That aside, Lance’s point was that there is a great deal of obfuscation going on with respect to the topic, and a debate on the merits is therefore difficult to have. He’s simply trying to cut through the extraneous BS in order to get t the heart of the matter — i.e. what is it we are being asked to condemn.
As for Mukasey’s nomination, I’m not sure why he should be opposed for wanting to make an informed decision. Under pressure from Senate politicans, the man merely said that he didn’t know enough about the topic to say whether or not it’s illegal. Don’t we want an AG who will not cave to political pressure?
This is certainly true if all you are looking for is affirmation of your moral superiority.
Comment by Cernig —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:22 am
MichaelW,
the man merely said that he didn’t know enough about the topic to say whether or not it’s illegal.
Then by all means let him say that he will suspend his own nomination until he does know enough and can then give a definative opinion. That would be an alternative I would find acceptable.
Regards, C
Comment by Keith_Indy —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:30 am
The simple solution is, if Congress thinks water boarding is immoral, it should also make it illegal.
Comment by Lance —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:47 am
I will make another point. I was used as an example of this:
As is unfortunately typical of every link we have received from here, it is demonstrably untrue. I explicitly note that we cannot assume the report is in fact true. First in a quote:
Then:
then again
and many more times in the comments. A better criticism of the post, and one I will address later, is where I point out one of the reasons we do not have the information we need to properly discuss the matter:
I think it would be fair to wonder if I feel that is sufficient justification. It certainly reads as if to give that impression credence, if not proof. Thus the need of course to ask me rather than link with that assertion, which you repeatedly have done in the past. That however is a legitimate question, and I’ll answer it in advance should it come up, no I don’t. Your actual criticism assumes things about my position you cannot possibly know, whether you are correct or not, and my post is certainly no example of some unquestioning swallowing of the idea that waterboarding was used only three times.
Michael is right about this kind of attitude, and it is one reason the issue has descended to a point where reasonable concerns about waterboarding and other coercive tactics are not being heard in Washington or amongst the American public. Stomping around asserting your moral superiority rarely changes minds, instead it hardens hearts.
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Lance: Well before you get to some tepid qualifiers late in your lengthy post, your second graf says this, with a link to the ABC story, my bold:
Yes, I am going stomp around moralistically about waterboarding and cavalier attitudes about it such as yours. Just as did the retired JAGs in their letter to Leahy.
If Mukasey is incompetent to know what these retired JAG officers emphatically state, he is not competent to be AG. Waterboarding, as the former JAGs unambiguously declare, is torture and is illegal.
Comment by ajay —
November 5, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
The arguments against waterboarding fitting within the definition above are:
A. It’s not “prolongedâ€
B. The waterboardee knows, or should know, that he will not be allowed to die from the procedure.
C. The suffering is not “severe†since it stops immediately upon cessation of the technique.
D. Neither the senses nor personality are “profoundly†disrupted (which I would take to mean that there is no permanent change in either).
A. This is poor reading comprehension.The mental harm caused by the torture is described as prolonged, not the torture itself. Torture, or other trauma, can be brief in duration but still cause prolonged mental harm.
B. Irrelevant. The victim doesn’t have to fear death for torture to count as torture. Everyone knows that crushing the fingers won’t kill you – it’s still torture.
C. Illogical. Suffering can be severe however long it lasts.
D. Wrong. “Profoundly” does not mean the same as “permanently”. Nor is it certain by any means that that sort of treatment wouldn’t cause a permanent personality change – for example, PTSD.
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Ah, the inevitable appeal to authority. Who cares if anyone agrees with you, Mona? Either you’re right or wrong. If you are right, it shouldn’t make one whit of difference that anyone agrees with you.
And calling Lance’s attitude “cavalier” is a bit much since he hasn’t made any claim that it’s much ado about nothing. As I stated before, he’s simply trying to narrow the focus to what we’re actually dealing with instead of the hyperbolic hand waving that (unfortunately) dominates the discussion. All the moral preening does is make people defensive. If you want to convince people that you’re right, it helps to address the real issues.
Ajay,
Congratulations on coming up with more ways to oppose the arguments presented. I still prefer mine, however. If you want to discuss them, I’m all ears.
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Yes, just as goes on in trials criminal and civil every day. They are called “expert witnesses.”
JAGs are expert as to what is legal and what is not when it comes to the military and international treaties which we have signed.
Comment by Barry —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Comment by Keith_Indy —
“The simple solution is, if Congress thinks water boarding is immoral, it should also make it illegal. ”
Torture is illegal. The administration’s reaction to those existing laws has been to prevent the laws from being faithfully executed.
Lance: ” Stomping around asserting your moral superiority rarely changes minds, instead it hardens hearts. ”
a) Lie (see 1990’s GOPropaganda for evidence).
b) Pot. Kettle. Black.
Comment by Lance —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
What about what I said is cavalier? Quite the opposite, the point is we need a debate that isn’t full of hysterical and exaggerated claims and cavalier attitudes about the truth. It has no bearing on whether one approves of waterboarding or not.
I realize you operate differently Mona. Thus you swallow and regurgitate anything based on the side you have taken. I don’t, so you choose to instead put words in my mouth and make claims about what I believe and never, never actually analyze the arguments put forth. No, you just preen your moral feathers, erase distinctions, all so you can shut down legitimate discussion. Scream fascist, neo-con or whatever the term of favor is, and claim it has some secret hold on people.
You define my qualifiers as tepid, I don’t. I cautioned about taking it at face value, just like in the quote I caution taking people with far less evidence for the case being widespread as untrustworthy. I do not assert it is false however, and it certainly puts a more realistic face than the picture being painted by many. Your decision to cast it as tepid is typical of what you do, as you tell people what they believe because it fits your agenda. Even if tepid, it still wouldn’t make me guilty of what you claimed. If you read the piece your charge was a lie, if you didn’t it was sloppy and misleading. You don’t get to justify throwing a false charge by making a different one.
As for my quote, it is spot on. It is true regardless of what one’s opinion is on the morality or legality of waterboarding. That was what the report said, which your stomping around does not change. You can justify mischaracterizing something or claiming you know something when you don’t because you feel you are on the right side of the issue if you want. Don’t expect me not to point it out however. Taking a quote in isolation, without all the qualifiers to justify a provably false assertion is exactly the kind of thing I am decrying in that quote. As is this entire discussion.
One thing I can say about you who wanted to “bomb them back to the stone age.” You are no more pleasant now than when you were a hawk. Just as screeching, just as mean spirited and just as ready to distort.
ajay,
Given that Michael (and frankly myself) agrees with you, it is pretty unsporting to highlight his effort to put the best arguments of the opposite view forward. Unlike Mona, Michael and I try to give the other side of an issue a fair hearing, even if we think the arguments are bad. We also generally assume they are given in good faith. Michael and I agree the arguments are not convincing as the rest of his analysis demonstrates.
Comment by Barry —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Another nice post:
http://bactra.org/weblog/533.html
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
But we’re talking about the moral implications, not the legal ones. In fact, is anybody even arguing that waterboarding isn’t proscribed by statute?
Comment by Lance —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
b) Pot. Kettle. Black.
What?
Actually I think that evidence supports me given its affect upon Democrats, but feel free to disagree. However, you should maybe look into what the word lie means, I don’t think it means what you think it does.
Comment by Lance —
November 5, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Any tool at hand Michael, any tool at hand.
Comment by mds —
November 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
The thing that seems very difficult to grasp by the great thinkers visiting this comment thread is that Mukasey has refused to state that waterboarding is proscribed by statute. What the fuck do you think led to this whole brouhaha in the first place?
But I would suggest that “cavalierly” was an inappropriate choice of words. It’s “thoughtfully stroking one’s chin while stating that opposition to torture is hysterical, a mere political football, and hey, who’s really to say what is or isn’t torture,” which is much different, though no less morally bankrupt.
But keep slapping one another on the back about your semantic games in a genuine libertarian blog’s comment section guys. You’re dominating the debate.
Thus you swallow and regurgitate anything based on the side you have taken.
Yeah, Mona, if you and your co-bloggers weren’t such rabid left-wing partisans, you’d understand that both sides have a point, instead of hysterically focusing on a federal judge and future US Attorney General refusing to call torture via waterboarding illegal.
Oh, well, if we only use each torture technique a little bit, it isn’t illegal or immoral. Thanks for clearing that up. Jeebus, do you guys work for Chuck Schumer?
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I assume by “grasp” you mean something other than directly address?
As for the following:
It is an interesting strawman. Good luck slaying it.
Hmmm, another strawman to slay.
Wow, yet another. You may need help …
Comment by Cernig —
November 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
In fact, is anybody even arguing that waterboarding isn’t proscribed by statute?
We’re not? Oh good.
In that case, would MichaelW and Lance like to state – for the record – that the people who waterboarded those three detainees, the people who ordered the waterboarding and the people who cleared waterboarding as a technique at all should ALL be prosecuted to the fullest extent of domestic and international law?
Regards, C
Comment by mds —
November 5, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Under pressure from Senate politicans, the man merely said that he didn’t know enough about the topic to say whether or not it’s illegal.
So, you’re defending him because he’s ignorant about the law, while dismissing the expert opinion of those who do know the relevant law as a mindless “appeal to authority”? Okay, then.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Apparently, we seem to have to keep reposting Lance’s own words:
Now, please explain (using small words, since I probably need “help”) how this isn’t dismissing the waterboarding issue by noting that it’s only been done a “little bit.”
I do apologize for the “great thinkers” snarky remark, though. You’re probably not stupid, merely mendacious.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 5, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
You know what? As much as I go after the Team Blue fanboys who post in the comments of this blog, I’m willing to believe that a very respectable portion of them would not choose be shitty little hair-splitting torture apologists, even if given the opportunity by their party.
Seriously – what’s wrong with some guy’s life that he’ll post rabid, aspergic, defenses of the indefensible? That he’ll use as evidence the claims of the same people who were telling us nigh-weekly a few years back that WMDs had been finally discovered in Iraq? That he’ll stand in defense of this administration and try to cast the people challenging it as the uncritical fools?
(Weirdly, these guys actually make me feel a iota less guilty about being on the wrong side of the debate, years ago. When I actually bought into the war and supported the Reds, I hated this sort of stupidity and thought fuckwits like these were the equivalents of the “We’re only fighting the war so a pipeline can be built!” idiots. I could have done worse…)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 5, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
an iota, oops.
Comment by Lance —
November 5, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
I don’t care what started it, my issue was she made claims about my post which were false. Glad to know deep thinking is so out of fashion with you. Mukasey had nothing to do with it. So whatever positions you think are so self evident that thinking about it, with chin stroking included or not, is indicative of some kind of moral flaw, it has nothing to do with misleading people about what I post.
Exactly where have I ever said that? Nowhere. Good to see you dine at the Mona style of misrepresentation. That this whole debate has been dominated by people doing that (including the “people who are opposed to torture are wussies or jihadi sympathizers” crowd) is my issue, not that opposing torture, or more specifically waterboarding is automatically symptomatic of that. You can tell the difference by how people approach the issue. If my description doesn’t fit you, then it isn’t addressed to you. Maybe your high dudgeon and need to misrepresent what I said shows it hits a little too close to home. If so, then reflect on the way you conduct your debate. I certainly don’t ask you to endorse torture or waterboarding.
So, pointing out that I said exactly the opposite of what was claimed in the post is a semantic game? Words have meaning. The semantic game is for Mona to decide she can decide what is really meant despite the plain words and meaningful distinctions made by authors. She goes even further, as has this thread, when the author makes clear, for those who can’t seem to get it, what is meant she, and obviously you, decide you get to overrule that. Hmmm…. Exactly the kind of thing my post was speaking of now that I think about it, so maybe it was addressed to you after all.
As for real libertarians, I am not a libertarian so I can know the secret handshake. My beliefs are not about being able to say I am one. They are my beliefs. They are of the sort generally considered libertarian. If I am not a libertarian then neither is Milton Friedman or Hayek. Libertarianism isn’t a creed, it is a general set of positions.
Obviously we are not dismissing it given the many discussions we have had. We are dismissing the way many people have approached the issue. To address the issue one must first get rid of the falsehoods, or areas asserted with no basis, even though later they may turn out to be true. As I said earlier, dishonesty and other ways of twisting a discussion of a subject are wrong, even if the underlying issue is real and substantive. Obviously you can’t accept that, the only reason someone might call BS is because they really want to torture, heck we probably get off on it.
As for myself, it does matter that people have been creating the impression of a much larger number of these interrogations than the evidence warrants. Sorry if such an observation distresses you. Once again, it hardly justifies Mona saying I was saying something I wasn’t. That is called being mendacious, pointing out the lack of truth of many assertions does not fall under the definition of mendacious.
Comment by lunchstealer —
November 5, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Wow. I’ve never seen anyone post a correction for article-vowel agreement before.
As for waterboarding and the accusation that various people are team-red fanboys, there’s an easy way to prevent that, if you think it shouldn’t apply to you. State clearly and unequivocally that by any rational definition it’s torture and that only a moron would believe that it wouldn’t be covered by laws outlawing torture.
If you can’t do that because you’re terrified of making definitive legal arguments, then you should at least say that any American president should make an executive order defining it as terrorism under his administration.
Comment by Barry —
November 5, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Comment by Eric the .5b —
“Seriously – what’s wrong with some guy’s life that he’ll post rabid, aspergic, defenses of the indefensible? That he’ll use as evidence the claims of the same people who were telling us nigh-weekly a few years back that WMDs had been finally discovered in Iraq? That he’ll stand in defense of this administration and try to cast the people challenging it as the uncritical fools?”
They’re evil. And, I think, that they’re usually people who aren’t shit. People who don’t have a life, and have decided that war porn isn’t strong enough anymore. So they’ve gone to torture porn, shoring up their weakness in the imagined strength that they show.
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
mds,
I’m not defending him. What makes you think that I am?
Again, whose dismissing it? The context in which Mona raised the JAG opinions was irrelevant. Unless, of course, one thinks that the legal is the moral. That would be a strange “libertarian” principle indeed. Some might say antithetical.
OK. READ THE POST. Small enough?
The Cliff’s Notes version is that Lance didn’t dismiss anything but exaggerations concerning the use of waterboarding.
Apology accepted! But you’re going to have to do better when you apologize for calling me a liar.
Cernig,
I won’t speak for Lance, but “commit the crime, do the time” works for me. That being said, I can’t say for certain that those who carried out the waterboarding are necessarily criminally liable, but judging from the statute (which I assume was in effect prior to 2003) somebody committed a crime. Whomever gave the legal advice that waterboarding did not violate the statute I highlighted (Gonzales as WH counsel?) would certainly be on the hook if you ask me.
One other thing, I would never say that someone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of international law, so I won’t do so now. US law will suffice, IMHO.
Eric the .5b,
If you are referring to Lance and/or I, I really don’t understand what you’re on about. Could you flesh it out? None of your missive even closely resembles what we’ve written on the topic.
Could be you’re referring to someone else?
Comment by Cernig —
November 5, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
judging from the statute (which I assume was in effect prior to 2003) somebody committed a crime. Whomever gave the legal advice that waterboarding did not violate the statute I highlighted (Gonzales as WH counsel?) would certainly be on the hook if you ask me. That’s good – almost good enough for me. Unfortunately “I was just following orders” isn’t a defense – c.f Nuremberg. Likewise, superiors e.g. national leadership, also have an obligation not to take the legal eagle’s word for a damn thing in such circumstances. If they themselves feel the legal opinion is wrong, they should refuse to implement any orders based upon it – and if they fail to refuse then they make themselves culpable by complicity in that agreement. Again, c/f/ Nuremberg. Now do you see why I mentioned international law? By statute, the US accepts as federal law any international laws it is a signatory to.
Regards, C
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 5, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Of course you don’t.
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Nonsense. The JAGs moralized heavily as well as stated (correct) legal opinions. If I’m to be accused of stomping around moralistically, I stand in good company with JAGs who know what fine line must be maintained so that we — our soldiers and nation — do not become that which we are fighting and ostensibly hate.
They know WHY it is important for the military adhere to the morality that is encoded in our law, and I am pleased to be in their company.
Lance’s post treated as some grand revelation that supposedly “only” 3 al Qaeda members had been waterboarded, and gleefully (with multiple exclamation points) thought this undermined those of us who have argued moralistically and loudly against the practice. That was the clear, salient aspect at the top of his long post.
One must keep in mind that Lance has a history of arguing that every “explanation” Michael Ledeen gives for his more obscene and insane remarks, should be given credence. He thinks I’m doing to his post what I and other horrible “smear merchants” do to the exalted Ledeen. Bridging the perception gap with such as Lance on the one hand, and UO habitues on the other, is really not possible.
Comment by MichaelW —
November 5, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Well shucks. And here I thought I would be able to sleep tonight.
And Godwin rears his ugly head … a law by which I will abide.
Cheers.
Comment by Cernig —
November 5, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Aw damn, I left him wriggle room to escape under a smokescreen of Godwin particles.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 5, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
You mean, mean lady, Mona.
In a discussion about government engaging in torture, you referred obliquely to the Nazis.
How insensitive of the feelings of the poor Red fanboys.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 5, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Oops, my bad. You were the mean person, Cernig.
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Pfft. You did no such thing in the mind of a reasonable and historically literate person. The lessons of Nuremberg predicated all international human rights law, including treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory, and standards which we have incorporated into our own statutes.
Yours was not a Godwin moment.
Comment by Mona —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
BTW, I have written several times that I’m no fan of the way some apply Godwin’s Law, as if the merest allusion to Hitler and Nazis invalidates an argument, which Godwin himself did not believe. Godwin has been inappropriately invoked here. From wiki, my emphasis:
Comment by Lance —
November 6, 2007 @ 12:12 am
That was not the clear salient aspect. The salient point is that people who have exaggerated and made up stuff are undermined. I have not argued that people in general who have argued against the practice are undermined at all. Maybe it bothers you because you are one of those who has made up stuff and exaggerated, I have no idea, though it would be completely within your character to do so.
None of which was your point in your post, which you keep trying to skate by, which is the idea that I uncritically accepted the story at face value. Since you no longer have the excuse of sloppy reading, you have now passed into the territory of liar.
As for your Ledeen obsession, I had one interview (and I think my only post referring to him)while you have brought him up repeatedly in connection with me. Exactly how one post in which I was interviewing the man makes me in the thrall of him I cannot be sure, especially since our politics are so dissimilar. If I do an interview with Norm Geras, does that make me a socialist? I would guess so since I have linked and discussed he, Bob from Brockley, Michael Weiss and any number of left wing figures far more often and with more sympathy.
If you want to say I believe you have misrepresented him, well fair enough, that hardly justifies your repeated attempts to connect me to him to any greater extent than that, especially when you try and attach your smears of him to me, which you have done in the past. If you want to continue to believe that Michael Ledeen’s fondest dream is to see the streets of the Middle East drenched in the blood of millions, go ahead. Just don’t attach me to any such desire.
Anyway, I tire, so I will leave as well. You misled your readers about my post, that is clear even if your other claims about what I was saying were true, though they as usual are not either.
Comment by Mona —
November 6, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Lance, our readers may decide. Your veneration for Ledeen was apparent at Inactivist — whose archives neither of us can recover — but your sycophantic interview with him at ASHC is here. You, Lance, do not recognize actual vicious liars when they are starkly in front of you.