The Politicization of Torture

I wonder if they even draw the line at Americans (4.00 / 1)

I wonder if these people would allow the government to torture Americans if there was an extra super-duper good reason to.  Or if it's that torturing non-Americans is okay but torturing Americans is not.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:09:57 PM CDT

That's the slippery slope. (4.00 / 1)

Once it is acceptable in some cases, it is only a matter of time when it is acceptable for all.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:09:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a thought I had a while back (0.00 / 0)

I was noticing today that, in my building, neither the seventh nor the eighth floors are accessible. So this set me on a little mental tangent involving "extraordinary rendition," the practice of shipping Global War on Terror suspects to countries where torture is legal, such as (if memory serves) Turkey.

So I thought this, and I thought about the enabling legal views of people like Alberto Gonzales and David Addington.

Then I thought, well, if the plane is Turkish, does it have to go all the way to Turkey? Must get expensive, all that fuel. And who makes Turkish planes? I'll bet we do.

So, what if we have deep cover CIA agents posing as Turkish nationals? Can a plane maintain deep cover? What about the airfield, can it pretend to be Turkish?

In other words, were US laws violated on US soil? And then, can we prosecute? What does it mean if we don't?

I think it's time I read a book I've owned since it was released: Chain of Command by Seymour Hersh.

Feel free to tell me I'm paranoid. I wouldn't mind hearing it.

http://www.bluenewstribune.com...

---

by: JimC @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:41:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who says the GOP doesn't believe in evolution? (4.00 / 2)

From Wonkette comments:

1. WE DON'T TORTURE
2. Okay, we did some stuff, but it WASN'T TORTURE
3. Okay, we tortured, BUT IT WAS LEGAL
4. Okay, it might have been illegal, BUT IT WORKED
5. Okay, we tortured, it was illegal, and it didn't work, BUT NANCY PELOSI MIGHT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT SO IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS' FAULT.

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:36:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there are no lines (4.00 / 1)

John Walker Lindh was tortured by the US, as was Jose Padilla.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 18:24:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll take it (0.00 / 0)

I share your concern here, Dean. But if it is to be our burden to push the right away from its 24 fantasy, at least we start on the right side. Torture remains un-American, and I am convinced that torture was politically damaging to the GOP. McCain saw the political danger, but couldn't stop it.

We see the Constitutional danger, but we can't despair like Digby, we still have to fight the good fight. There is always time to do the right thing.

If the Obama team thinks they have a political chip here, they're mistaken. Torture is un-American and inhuman. Period amen.

---

by: JimC @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:50:03 PM CDT

Unfortunately, Obama is also... (4.00 / 1)

continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition.

---

by: Brinck Slattery @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:13:26 PM CDT

For real? (0.00 / 0)

Link? I could've swore I read he put a stop to that in the initial weeks of his administration.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:16:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

From the LA Times (4.00 / 1)

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

and from a site I don't usually frequent...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2...

---

by: Brinck Slattery @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:23:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Bush administration's (0.00 / 0)

disappearing people under this program was the most offensive thing they did. I am really disappointed Obama is continuing it.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:27:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

From the LA Times article: (0.00 / 0)

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters (emphasis added), it is an acceptable practice."

....

The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

If Human Rights Watch isn't up in arms about this, I don't believe we need to be.

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 23:32:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, no (0.00 / 0)

Human Rights Watch is just wrong.

The American justice system, while imperfect, is the best in the world. Why would renditions ever be necessary?

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:40:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No big deal (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure it is wise to offer certain scumbags the priviledge of the protections afforded to American citizens.

Some have argued that our ideals are not hemmed in by imaginary lines. This is not wrong. As we project ourselves globally, we should act in accordance with those ideals, though we may not be mandated to.

When fighting evil, we should never contradict our ideals, but we should be selective on which ones we focus on.

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:33:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pulling wings off of flies. (4.00 / 2)

Well, I am rather sure that it is wise to "offer certain scumbags the priviledge of the protections afforded to American citizens" but it has nothing to do with whether they are scumbags or not or even if they are American citizens. Our behavior must not be controlled by what others do. Scumbags come and go. Our treatment of them is forever. Who can forget Caligula, Nero, Vlad the Impaler? Our behavior is controlled by moral precepts developed over the years of our democratic experience and our interpretation of history. There is a basic misunderstanding in the concept of matching the punishment to the crime. This is not an individual matching it is a set of what we have found to be acceptable treatments for behaviors classified in accordance to our laws. There is no sense in which we would or should modify our punishments depending upon how reprehensible the behavior of our opponents. One doesn't pull the wings off of a fly because it gave you typhoid. The only thing that could explain your pulling the wings off of flies is some sort of sickness in your head. Same thing is true for torture. It doesn't work, hasn't work, can't work. Instances presented as working turn out to conveniently leave out the immense waste of time checking out all the other stuff that the torturee has said to get the pain to stop that also must be checked out. Just listen to those that have been involved. Not the wing pullers like Cheney, the boots on the ground CIA types. Torture is a corrupting event. All those involved are corrupted. Anyone who offers an excuse for it tries to forgive themselves. This debate was over long ago and no number of caveats and ticking time bomb scenarios can change that.

---

by: xteeth @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:07:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

3 hots and a cot (0.00 / 0)

I agree that torture is illegal and should remain that way. What is considered torture changes over time. Your history references makes that clear.

In the comment above. I was addressing more the matter of extraordinary rendition. Maybe I was to vague. Oops.

One of the principle arguements against ER is that "detainees" are subject to the judicial mores and values of the host nation. Problem being, those host nations may be rather nasty in their treatment of those detainess, which we have asked them to care for.

I'm not ready to play armchair Amnesty International on behest of some truly bad, with a capital B, Bad, people.

That's what my gut tells me and there is plenty of truthiness out there to support this feeling.

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:23:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No the problem is (4.00 / 2)

people get picked up by the U.S. in countries where the U.S. has no authority (like Italy and Macedonia), deported to countries other than those in which they reside and hold citizenship (Maher Arar sent to Syria instead of Canada), where they are tortured by foreign intelligence services not at all accountable to the U.S. government which delivered these people.

It's disrespectful of international norms of sovereignty,* makes the historic protective capacity of citizenship meaningless,** and is reminiscent of the horrible human rights abuses that occurred under dictators that we now condemn.***

If it's not OK for the North Koreans to pick you up on the streets of Lowell and ship you to some horrible place in a third country, it's not OK for the U.S. government to do that to "suspected" (on little more than suspicion or malicious accusation or clerical error) bad guys.

*if I ran a country, I would consider it enough to act as casus belli, if I were looking for war.

**no moral high-ground left for kidnappings of Americans by guerilla or other hostile groups.

***e.g. Operation Condor

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:40:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are presuming innocence (0.00 / 0)

There are some flagrant historical references that prove me wrong, but I'm going under the presumption that we are talking about bad, bad people.

Our system does not allow cops to be judge and jury. I'm rooting for the real pro's that exercise discretion before they whisk someone away.

Remember, you are blogging with an Infantry soldier. Spirit of the Bayonet, and all.

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:55:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But if it was explicitly allowed... (4.00 / 2)

...how long before it was used on someone who is innocent to achieve some foreign policy objective of the U.S.?  I think that the presumption has to be that it would be / is being used on a mix of people.

It just seems to me that doing that kind of stuff is likely in reality far more dangerous to more Americans than even allowing a genuinely bad guy to go un-renditioned, especially as American international dominance wanes in coming decades.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:19:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scapels (0.00 / 0)

We let surgeons slice people wide open, don't we?

Is it a matter of choice or a matter of professionalism?

I choose to have a heart bypass.
I don't choose to be captured by the CIA. But I did choose to build the car bomb.

We do bad things to bad people. How bad is the big question.

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:43:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I mean the sharp thingys n/t (0.00 / 0)

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:49:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one is fooled by these discriptions - this was waterboarding (0.00 / 0)

I suppose I could be forced into some other interpretation but what has been described as waterboarding is certainly what they have done some 83 times to one guy and 168 to the other is identical with what we have prosecuted others for during the WWII. Though we may have added subtleties to our determinations, they have not materially changed as far as I can make out. The threat of death, whether through waterboarding or holding a pistol up to the head of a captive person has never been allowed, approved, accomodated or however else you would like to interpret the actions. Throughout our history everyone from Geo. Washington through Lincoln to Eisenhower, up until Bush, held these same feelings. We just plain don't do that. Like so many others I add the "doesn't work" part but that is not the reason. The reason is that torture is incompatible with democracy. I am perfectly willing to add things to the reason but if you don't understand this unreconcilable truth, I am sorry. The same thing is true for the repeal of the death penalty and gay marriage. They are fundamental things to democracy. We must not behave this way. It is corrosive in a terminal way. Torture, state sanctioned murder and inequality. Opposition to them is fundamental. We cannot and will not continue to be a democracy with these vipers clutched to our chest.

---

by: xteeth @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:29:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Turn about is fair play? (0.00 / 0)

You just wait. As Obama tilts things back to the way things were pre-Dubya, the GOoPers will point out that he isn't bringing about "change."

On extraordinary rendition, the GOoPers will, in a two fisted manner, slime Obama over bringing baddies on american soil while concurrently claimimg that trial lawyers are profitting from the court battles.

Just like with health care, the GOoPers will talk out both sides of there mouths. Assholes, that they are.

The giant blogs for progress.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:15:01 PM CDT