Have Americans become morally tone-deaf?

[Clancy]

Where Is the Outrage?
by Robert Scheer
May 28, 2008
https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/28/9232/


Are we Americans truly savages or merely tone-deaf in matters of morality, and therefore more guilty of terminal indifference than venality? It’s a question demanding an answer in response to the publication of the detailed 370-page report on U.S. complicity in torture, issued last week by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Because the report was widely cited in the media and easily accessed as a pdf file on the Internet, it is fair to assume that those of our citizens who remain ignorant of the extent of their government’s commitment to torture as an official policy have made a choice not to be informed. A less appealing conclusion would be that they are aware of the heinous acts fully authorized by our president but conclude that such barbarism is not inconsistent with that American way of life that we celebrate.

But that troubling assessment of moral indifference is contradicted by the scores of law enforcement officers, mostly from the FBI, who were so appalled by what they observed as routine official practice in the treatment of prisoners by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo that they risked their careers to officially complain. A few brave souls from the FBI even compiled a “war crimes file,” suggesting the unthinkable — that we might come to be judged as guilty by the standard we have imposed on others. Superiors in the Justice Department soon put a stop to such FBI efforts to hold CIA agents and other U.S. officials accountable for the crimes they committed.

That this systematic torture was carried out not by a few conveniently described “bad apples” but rather represented official policy condoned at the highest level of government was captured in one of those rare media reports that remind us why the Founding Fathers signed off on the First Amendment.

“These were not random acts,” The New York Times editorialized. “It is clear from the inspector general’s report that this was organized behavior by both civilian and military interrogators following the specific orders of top officials. The report shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners.”

One of those top officials, who stands revealed in the inspector general’s report as approving the torture policy, is Condoleezza Rice, who in her capacity as White House national security adviser turned away the concerns of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft as to the severe interrogation measures being employed. Rice, as ABC-TV reported in April, chaired the top-level meetings in 2002 in the White House Situation Room that signed off on the CIA treatment of prisoners — “whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called water boarding. …” According to the report, the former academic provost of Stanford University came down on the side of simulated drowning.

As further proof that women are not necessarily more squeamish than men in condoning such practices, the report offers examples of sexual and religious denigration of the mostly Muslim prisoners by female interrogators carrying out an official policy of “invasion of space by a female.” In one recorded instance observed by startled FBI agents, a female interrogator was seen with a prisoner “bending his thumbs back and grabbing his genitals … to cause him pain.” One of the agents testified that this was not “a case of a rogue interrogator acting on her own.” He said he witnessed a “pep rally” meeting conducted by a top Defense Department official “in which the interrogators were encouraged to get as close to the torture statute line as possible.”

That was evidently the norm, according to FBI agents who witnessed the interrogations. As The New York Times reported, “One bureau memorandum spoke of ‘torture techniques’ used by military interrogators. Agents described seeing things like inmates handcuffed in a fetal position for up to 24 hours, left to defecate on themselves, intimidated by dogs, made to wear women’s underwear and subjected to strobe lights and extreme heat and cold.”

In the end, what seems to have most outraged the hundreds of FBI agents interviewed for the report is that the interrogation tactics were counterproductive. Evidently the FBI’s long history in such matters had led to a protocol that stressed gaining the confidence of witnesses rather than terrorizing them into madness. But an insane prisoner is the one most likely to tell this president of the United States what he wants to hear: They hate us for our values.

[Lenny]

Man, it takes a LONG time to d/l that 370 page report! I can only wonder how this writer got up so fast on it all after reading it. Of course this scree clearly has that "george bush is evil" tone, but then that IS begging the question; I mean about morality.
Now posting in this environment should mean that I am a "progressive" and/or hate GB & CO. and probably agree with the writer. Oh well.
From what I've been lead to believe there are two categories of FBI guys. One is the button down white shirt type, and the other are the certifiable lunatics. I trust those that produced reports witnessed such atrocities, and may probably be characterized as the former, more so than the later.
Ya know, though I am not going to vote for McCain, I can clearly understand his abhorrence to torture. But a few guys getting the snot kicked out of them during WAR is enough to get us here, IN SONOMA, all knicked up in our panties. Really. I can't excuse them, I can't condone them, nor can I condemn them. I'll read as much of that report as I can, but in the end, know it: WAR IS HELL. And for you atheists who've been there and came back, go ahead, don't believe, you've already known hell.
What's ironic is that those Moslem terrorists that were tortured believed that we, US, could not, nor would not, produce hell for them. Now they believe as well.
Oh, and "morality" means "SHARED VALUES" and I guess some of us don't share the same values as others. In a sense, some of US may share the same values as those who behead US.
Zounds, and here I was starting to feel better. Now I feel like :2cents: waiting for change.

[Philip Tymon]

"What's ironic is that those Moslem terrorists that were tortured....."

And you know they were terrorists because...?


"...believed that we, US, could not, nor would not, produce hell for them."

And you know what they believed because...?




Man, it takes a LONG time to d/l that 370 page report! I can only wonder how this writer got up so fast on it all after reading it. Of course this scree clearly has that "george bush is evil" tone, but then that IS begging the question; I mean about morality.
Now posting in this environment should mean that I am a "progressive" and/or hate GB & CO. and probably agree with the writer. Oh well.
From what I've been lead to believe there are two categories of FBI guys. One is the button down white shirt type, and the other are the certifiable lunatics. I trust those that produced reports witnessed such atrocities, and may probably be characterized as the former, more so than the later.
Ya know, though I am not going to vote for McCain, I can clearly understand his abhorrence to torture. But a few guys getting the snot kicked out of them during WAR is enough to get us here, IN SONOMA, all knicked up in our panties. Really. I can't excuse them, I can't condone them, nor can I condemn them. I'll read as much of that report as I can, but in the end, know it: WAR IS HELL. And for you atheists who've been there and came back, go ahead, don't believe, you've already known hell.
What's ironic is that those Moslem terrorists that were tortured believed that we, US, could not, nor would not, produce hell for them. Now they believe as well.
Oh, and "morality" means "SHARED VALUES" and I guess some of us don't share the same values as others. In a sense, some of US may share the same values as those who behead US.
Zounds, and here I was starting to feel better. Now I feel like :2cents: waiting for change.

[Lenny]

"What's ironic is that those Moslem terrorists that were tortured....."

And you know they were terrorists because...?

"...believed that we, US, could not, nor would not, produce hell for them."

And you know what they believed because...?

Well, you make too fine a point for me to refute. I wasn't there. I did not interview them, nor know their intentions or what lay in their heart, nor their political beliefs. SOMEWHERE along the line I suppose I have to BELIEVE something, like those that are there have more direct knowledge of the situation than us. And although I am aware that any government must lie to its people, I am not so conspiratorial in this instance as you may be. But I can value your stance.
Of course your epistemological notion is always paramount, and I appreciate it. But then in a casual reading of the source document indicates only fewer than 10 guys were tortured. But then how can I believe that source document? How can I believe that you CAN'T believe they were not Muslims, Republicans, or tortured? You raise points that are begin to approach credulity. But for the sake of argument, I'll pass.

[thewholetruth]

War is Hell. Leave our soldiers alone. World War II vets didn't talk about what happened there. Why was that, do you imagine? Because war is Hell and people will do things that folks who are 3,000 miles away will think are bad. We used to honor our soldiers. Now we interrogate them.

Political Correctness is the problem in our country on so many levels. Thank God we're rooting it out right now, along with the Liberal hypocrites who lean on it as a way of life.

Leave our soldiers alone, or go join them on the front lines, cowards. Put up or shut up. I think that's what I'm trying to say to the PC crowd who whines about accountability on the battle field. :2cents:


Well, you make too fine a point for me to refute. I wasn't there. I did not interview them, nor know their intentions or what lay in their heart, nor their political beliefs. SOMEWHERE along the line I suppose I have to BELIEVE something, like those that are there have more direct knowledge of the situation than us. And although I am aware that any government must lie to its people, I am not so conspiratorial in this instance as you may be. But I can value your stance.
Of course your epistemological notion is always paramount, and I appreciate it. But then in a casual reading of the source document indicates only fewer than 10 guys were tortured. But then how can I believe that source document? How can I believe that you CAN'T believe they were not Muslims, Republicans, or tortured? You raise points that are begin to approach credulity. But for the sake of argument, I'll pass.

[Clancy]

So, you think the FBI agents are politically correct cowards whining about accountability?



War is Hell. Leave our soldiers alone. World War II vets didn't talk about what happened there. Why was that, do you imagine? Because war is Hell and people will do things that folks who are 3,000 miles away will think are bad. We used to honor our soldiers. Now we interrogate them.

Political Correctness is the problem in our country on so many levels. Thank God we're rooting it out right now, along with the Liberal hypocrites who lean on it as a way of life.

Leave our soldiers alone, or go join them on the front lines, cowards. Put up or shut up. I think that's what I'm trying to say to the PC crowd who whines about accountability on the battle field. :2cents:

[Philip Tymon]

Yes, war is hell.

And who started this war?

Just because George Bush runs over a cliff, does that mean we all have to follow him?






War is Hell. Leave our soldiers alone. World War II vets didn't talk about what happened there. Why was that, do you imagine? Because war is Hell and people will do things that folks who are 3,000 miles away will think are bad. We used to honor our soldiers. Now we interrogate them.

Political Correctness is the problem in our country on so many levels. Thank God we're rooting it out right now, along with the Liberal hypocrites who lean on it as a way of life.

Leave our soldiers alone, or go join them on the front lines, cowards. Put up or shut up. I think that's what I'm trying to say to the PC crowd who whines about accountability on the battle field. :2cents:

[thewholetruth]

So, you think the FBI agents are politically correct cowards whining about accountability?

I think FBI agents have no business abroad.

[Clancy]

I think FBI agents have no business abroad.

So?

The fact remains that career FBI interrogators, not generally known for 'cowardly political correctness', were appalled by their colleague's torture excesses. So appalled that they risked their careers to bring it to public attention.

[thewholetruth]

Yes, war is hell.

And who started this war?

Don't be foolish. This war has been going on for a long, long time.


Just because George Bush runs over a cliff, does that mean we all have to follow him?

No one is asking you to follow him. I'm telling you that we need to leave our troops alone during wartime. War is Hell. Ask a man to risk his own life while trying to kill an enemy and then expect him to act civil is insane. Knowing someone might have you in their scope at every moment will rattle anyone's cage. War is not civil. Killing people is not civil, yet at times it's not only inevitable but mandatory in order to stay alive. Keep the politics away from our troops. They are doing their job and hopefully coming back alive. How they go about that is not the public's business. You would agree with me if you were over there with a gun in your hands and a mission on your plate.

This isn't about politics, bra. This is about war.

[Clancy]

This isn't about politics, bra. This is about war.

Occupations of broken-down third world countries that happen to be vital oil resources isn't about war, it's about politics and profit.

[thewholetruth]

So?

The fact remains that career FBI interrogators, not generally known for 'cowardly political correctness', were appalled by their colleague's torture excesses. So appalled that they risked their careers to bring it to public attention.

So?

This isn't national espionage. This is war. We'd ALL be appalled by what goes on during war, Clancy. Political Correctness is what makes you think it's your business. It's not. Pick up a gun and join up, or pipe down and be grateful someone else is doing the fighting. War is none of your business unless you're IN it.

[thewholetruth]

Occupations of broken-down third world countries that happen to be vital oil resources isn't about war, it's about politics and profit.

If you're correct, then head on over and talk politics over there. The truth is that you're incorrect. This is about war now.

[Braggi]

...War is none of your business unless you're IN it.

Yes, morally tone deaf.

This is the kind of thinking that allowed Hitler to come to power.

-Jeff

[Clancy]

This isn't national espionage. This is war. We'd ALL be appalled by what goes on during war, Clancy. Political Correctness is what makes you think it's your business. It's not. Pick up a gun and join up, or pipe down and be grateful someone else is doing the fighting. War is none of your business unless you're IN it.

Your fantasies of nationalistic orgies of violence and retribution have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Torture doesn't work and it's counterproductive, according to FBI experts and many other military experts - google it and open your eyes.

BushCo is flaunting international law and has ruined our reputation in the world by ignoring what they called the 'quaint' Geneva Conventions (That WE agreed to abide by).

The FBI agents are the real heroes in this story, at least they stood up for the kind of values that I was raised to believe America held dear. The kind of values a country must respect if they're going to claim moral high ground over others in the world.

[theindependenteye]

Some recent posts on Wacco have addressed the issues of torture and other war activities. As I understand it, the argument is that, since we’re at war, and war is hell, all actions of our soldiers -- any action taken by a soldier under stress, whether on patrol in Sadr City or guarding inmates at Guantanam -- should be outside the scope of judgment.

Assume for a moment that I accept this. It’s not a big problem for me to hear on the evening news that Marines have raped a child and executed her family to cover it up. I can just put another bite in my mouth. War is hell, and they’ve been sent there by a President who has more inside info than I do, and after all I’m helping to pay the bills.

But as I think about it, it starts to get complicated. Let’s not invoke the Geneva Conventions, which seem to be as passé as the Ten Commandments. And let’s set aside the argument that every killing of every civilian recruits a dozen militants. Can’t prove that: maybe these people were just born vicious.

But what about the military’s own codes of conduct? Were these put in place by squishy Liberals, or by commanders over decades and centuries with experiential expertise in organizing and disciplining huge masses of men in hellish conditions? Are there commanders today who will actually go on record to state that any act committed by any soldier under any circumstance is excusable because war is hell? And that “Do your own thing” is permissible on the field of battle?

And how does this apply to the guy who doesn’t rape the child or shoot her family, but whose buddies did? Has he, by signing up, agreed to keep his mouth shut, to be complicit in any act that stems from war, to fill out his service, go home, and live with his own guilt and his nightmares? Does every enlisted man agree, because war is hell, to become demonic?

And whom are we bringing home? People so traumatized by what they’ve seen or what they’ve done that, one way or another, they flush themselves down the sewer in record numbers, with scant help from the guys who sent’em there. If I were in their place, “We support our troops” would ring pretty hollow. WWII vets came home to the GI Bill. Vietnam vets came home to vilification. Iraq vets come home long enough to be sent back.

I think we do have a choice. We can become the most vicious monsters on the face of the planet, supplemented by the firepower whose expense is destroying our own way of life in the fear that everyone else is bent on destroying our way of life, and the hope that unbridled bestiality will cow those bastards. Or we can adhere to a morality that, for a few centuries at least, has sometimes been honored in the observance.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Ps- Personal opinion only. I have no proof that any of this is true. I belong to that portion of the population who are reputed to have corrupted this nation (oh what power we must wield!) and who are now, according to another post, being rooted out.

[Philip Tymon]

These people that were tortured were not on a battle-field. They were in a jail cell. They were helpless prisoners.

None of them had ever had the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge and simply say "but I'm innocent, I didn't do anything". They were presumed guilty just because.

The military paid people in Afghanistan and Iraq to turn in "terrorists". It has been well documented that many people simply used this as an opportunity to turn in people they had a grudge against and get paid for it. Hell, if we were invaded by folks from China or somewhere and they would pay me to $10,000 to turn in a "terrorist" I'd be darn tempted to turn in that jerk down my road who stands out on the street swiging his beer and yelling at me when I drive past.

Sorry dude-- patriotism is not blindly following a foolish leader while he drags your country down with one disasterous decision after another. Patriotism is trying to save your country from that disaster.


Don't be foolish. This war has been going on for a long, long time.



No one is asking you to follow him. I'm telling you that we need to leave our troops alone during wartime. War is Hell. Ask a man to risk his own life while trying to kill an enemy and then expect him to act civil is insane. Knowing someone might have you in their scope at every moment will rattle anyone's cage. War is not civil. Killing people is not civil, yet at times it's not only inevitable but mandatory in order to stay alive. Keep the politics away from our troops. They are doing their job and hopefully coming back alive. How they go about that is not the public's business. You would agree with me if you were over there with a gun in your hands and a mission on your plate.

This isn't about politics, bra. This is about war.

[thewholetruth]

Your fantasies of nationalistic orgies of violence and retribution have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Torture doesn't work and it's counterproductive, according to FBI experts and many other military experts - google it and open your eyes.

BushCo is flaunting international law and has ruined our reputation in the world by ignoring what they called the 'quaint' Geneva Conventions (That WE agreed to abide by).

The FBI agents are the real heroes in this story, at least they stood up for the kind of values that I was raised to believe America held dear. The kind of values a country must respect if they're going to claim moral high ground over others in the world.

Clancy, snap out of it, sir. Grenada ring a bell? It's not about Bush, silly man. It's about government. It doesn't matter if the Pres is Demo or Repub, they start unnecessary wars. That you and your cohorts keep fingerpointing to BushCo seems to imply that you're naive and unaware that Clinton did the same thing BushCo did.

Or did we forget about that?

And gossip about troops isn't news. It's gossip. The media used to leave soldiers to do their jobs, and now their job is to create news. Accusing soldiers of wrongdoing makes great news, doesn't it? It sure gets your attention. It's gossip and there is no longer an unbiased news source. It's all about getting you to watch/read/listen to the news now, Clancy.

Don't buy into it.

[Clancy]

Are you having a hard time following the thread?


Clancy, snap out of it, sir. Grenada ring a bell? It's not about Bush, silly man. It's about government. It doesn't matter if the Pres is Demo or Repub, they start unnecessary wars. That you and your cohorts keep fingerpointing to BushCo seems to imply that you're naive and unaware that Clinton did the same thing BushCo did.

Or did we forget about that?

And gossip about troops isn't news. It's gossip. The media used to leave soldiers to do their jobs, and now their job is to create news. Accusing soldiers of wrongdoing makes great news, doesn't it? It sure gets your attention. It's gossip and there is no longer an unbiased news source. It's all about getting you to watch/read/listen to the news now, Clancy.

Don't buy into it.

[thewholetruth]

Are you having a hard time following the thread?

I've followed the thread. I don't buy the tactics. I don't buy the attack on our soldiers. I don't buy the news medias attempts to get you all worked up. I don't trust the news media. I don't trust the PC crowd.

I think our troops should be left alone to do battle because I don't buy the charges. I don't believe the media anymore.

[thewholetruth]

Sorry, dood, but every president we've had for the last 50 years has been a flunky. It's not about Bush. It's about government. It's about politics. It's about money. The way the PC crowd has made our soldiers the scapegoats for political b.s. is pathetic. Your ranting and flailing of your arms doesn't make the news any more accurate than the cartoons on TV and I don't buy any of it. Bush/Clinton, it doesn't matter. It's American politics in action.


These people that were tortured were not on a battle-field. They were in a jail cell. They were helpless prisoners.

None of them had ever had the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge and simply say "but I'm innocent, I didn't do anything". They were presumed guilty just because.

The military paid people in Afghanistan and Iraq to turn in "terrorists". It has been well documented that many people simply used this as an opportunity to turn in people they had a grudge against and get paid for it. Hell, if we were invaded by folks from China or somewhere and they would pay me to $10,000 to turn in a "terrorist" I'd be darn tempted to turn in that jerk down my road who stands out on the street swiging his beer and yelling at me when I drive past.

Sorry dude-- patriotism is not blindly following a foolish leader while he drags your country down with one disasterous decision after another. Patriotism is trying to save your country from that disaster.

[Clancy]

The FBI is the 'PC crowd'? And how, pray tell, is the FBI making our soldiers "scapegoats for political b.s."?

Try to focus Don, we're talking about the FBI blowing the whistle on illegal torture. Are you for it or against it?



Sorry, dood, but every president we've had for the last 50 years has been a flunky. It's not about Bush. It's about government. It's about politics. It's about money. The way the PC crowd has made our soldiers the scapegoats for political b.s. is pathetic. Your ranting and flailing of your arms doesn't make the news any more accurate than the cartoons on TV and I don't buy any of it. Bush/Clinton, it doesn't matter. It's American politics in action.

[Clancy]

Surely a law and order type like you respects the FBI, how is it you keep ignoring what this thread is about?



I've followed the thread. I don't buy the tactics. I don't buy the attack on our soldiers. I don't buy the news medias attempts to get you all worked up. I don't trust the news media. I don't trust the PC crowd.

I think our troops should be left alone to do battle because I don't buy the charges. I don't believe the media anymore.

[thewholetruth]

The FBI is the 'PC crowd'? And how, pray tell, is the FBI making our soldiers "scapegoats for political b.s."?

Try to focus Don, we're talking about the FBI blowing the whistle on illegal torture. Are you for it or against it?

I'm focused, Clancy. Your "report" isn't very specific and generalizes back and forth about unidentified FBI agents and a report that was put together by whom, exactly? The Justice Department Inspector General? Does he have a name or political party affiliation? I didn't see that it credited the FBI with authoring the report, only with reporting particular incidents. What is the FBI doing in Iran and other overseas countries, anyway? That isn't their territory. What I mean is, even your report is vague and generalized and frankly, as much as you love it, I don't consider it of value at all. It just appears to be more political crap put together by Democrats. Which Democrats? It doesn't say, does it?

So I'm focusing, Clancy, on what you posted: a somewhat generic report that doesn't qualify itself. It just looks like crap to me. Accusing our soldiers of wrongdoing in order to discredit the Bush administration. *shrugs* This sort of thing goes on every day in the paper. I've never seen anything come of it, ever. If it were real, heads would roll. When it's just fodder as political weaponry, nothing happens.

[Clancy]

I'm focused, Clancy. Your "report" isn't very specific and generalizes back and forth about unidentified FBI agents and a report that was put together by whom, exactly? The Justice Department Inspector General? Does he have a name or political party affiliation? I didn't see that it credited the FBI with authoring the report, only with reporting particular incidents. What is the FBI doing in Iran and other overseas countries, anyway? That isn't their territory. What I mean is, even your report is vague and generalized and frankly, as much as you love it, I don't consider it of value at all. It just appears to be more political crap put together by Democrats. Which Democrats? It doesn't say, does it?

So I'm focusing, Clancy, on what you posted: a somewhat generic report that doesn't qualify itself. It just looks like crap to me. Accusing our soldiers of wrongdoing in order to discredit the Bush administration. *shrugs* This sort of thing goes on every day in the paper. I've never seen anything come of it, ever. If it were real, heads would roll. When it's just fodder as political weaponry, nothing happens.

Heads have rolled Don, U.S. soldiers have been convicted of abuse and torture-murder of Iraqi civilians. Odd that you don't know that yet pontificate so forcefully on the subject.

[thewholetruth]

Heads have rolled Don, U.S. soldiers have been convicted of abuse and torture-murder of Iraqi civilians. Odd that you don't know that yet pontificate so forcefully on the subject.

Odd? I would think my pontification would make more sense, knowing that I didn't know about any convictions of that nature. My position, as it has been since the Media started making a circus out of war, is that our soldiers need to be left alone. There is honor among them, and they can adequately police each other as has been shown over the years. That someone sitting in California or Rhode Island or Ohio thinks they should be the shot caller in a soldier's life in battle is ridiculous. My position remains the same in that regard, despite your claim that there have been soldiers "convicted of abuse and torture-murder". It's none of your business or mine how a soldier conducts themselves during war or battle. Soldiers can hold one another accountable, IMO.

[Lenny]

So, you think the FBI agents are politically correct cowards whining about accountability?

No. They were ORDERED to "whine" or report on what they saw. Reading the source document provided may shed a little bit of light and alter the attitude, no doubt. Information does that, or can when you remain open minded.

[Lenny]

I think FBI agents have no business abroad.

Thanks for picking up on this. I've seen too little about it and it scares me. That started under Clinton, if I recall, and really bugged me. The reason given is something that about it being connected to terrorism here at home. I believe JEDGAR would never have allowed this. But we "evolve", eh?

[Lenny]

So?
The fact remains that career FBI interrogators, not generally known for 'cowardly political correctness', were appalled by their colleague's torture excesses. So appalled that they risked their careers to bring it to public attention.

Actually, it wasn't "they" who brought it to the public's attention. The FBI noted that there was a difference in interrogation techniques when the saw how the DOD did it. The FBI's training is to utilize "rapport building" and non-threatening methods in questioning. They have a different goal in mind: court and the rules of evidence, to a jury (meaning: beyond a reasonable doubt), as well as maintaining the rules of the court. Seems such delicate and sensible matters don't add up to the same ends in a field of war. So the DOD's technique was different and the FBI is duty bound to report THAT. So, in the language used in this thread, the FBI was "PC" and "cowardly" in so doing.
The report, ultimately, was from an intended consequence initiated by a 60 minutes report on Abu Grahib, and THAT was from a memo from the military months before. What a country!

[Lenny]

Torture doesn't work and it's counterproductive, according to FBI experts and many other military experts - google it and open your eyes.
BushCo is flaunting international law and has ruined our reputation in the world by ignoring what they called the 'quaint' Geneva Conventions (That WE agreed to abide by).
The FBI agents are the real heroes in this story, at least they stood up for the kind of values that I was raised to believe America held dear. The kind of values a country must respect if they're going to claim moral high ground over others in the world.

PLEASE, read the source docs. The FBI KNOWS torture doesn't work FOR THEIR OBJECTIVES, which are dictated by the rules of court.
The growing body of evidence is that torture DOES WORK in the field of war, I am sorry to say. That does not make it "right" or "moral", but then if you believe war is immoral (another question is "what COULD make a moral war?" which the Geneva Conventions TRY to address in non-moral language) then all else follows, logically. Of course utilizing the Geneva Conventions can lead one down the path that what's was done is still within those conventions by the letter, though not the spirit.
But I gather we would rather blather than read the documents given, boring as they may be to some.
Oh, and as far as "ruining our reputation in the world", please!

[Clancy]

The growing body of evidence is that torture DOES WORK in the field of war, I am sorry to say.

If the 'body of evidence' is growing, it should be a simple matter for you to present some, here, to back up your claim.

[Braggi]

Clancy, snap out of it, sir. Grenada ring a bell? It's not about Bush, silly man. It's about government. ...

Hmmm. So all governments start wars without provocation? I agree with your point that Reagan was as much of a criminal as Bush since Grenada also posed no threat to us. But the government of Canada isn't invading anyone I know of nor is Costa Rica. Those countries both have governments. Your point is lost, at least on me.


... That you and your cohorts keep fingerpointing to BushCo seems to imply that you're naive and unaware that Clinton did the same thing BushCo did. ...

Please make a comparison here that makes some kind of sense, Don.

I don't think you can.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... if you believe war is immoral (another question is "what COULD make a moral war?" which the Geneva Conventions TRY to address in non-moral language) then all else follows, logically. Of course utilizing the Geneva Conventions can lead one down the path that what's was done is still within those conventions by the letter, though not the spirit. ...

I think the Geneva Conventions did attempt to create a layer of morality over what I believe to be immoral acts (that is, acts of war). The outlawing of poison gas and torture was indeed, moral. But then, civilians aren't supposed to be targets, and increasingly, civilians are targets and primary casualties in wars, which make war that much less moral in modern times.

War is unnecessary. We'll do better without it. Better to avoid giving enemies such wonderful propaganda and recruiting tools. I agree that every tortured innocent produces another dozen terrorists. The actual number barely matters but the point is that innocent victims are infuriated and so are their families and friends.

We, the citizens of the US, are paying for the torture and murder of innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere. Therefore we are paying to create reasons for terrorists and other potential enemies to recruit foot soldiers. This is a grave error and it is our moral responsibility to do everything in our power to stop it.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the entire world supported us. Now nearly the entire world believes we are the greatest terrorist nation on the planet. That's the work of BushCo.

We have a lot of healing to accomplish and we could start by following our own laws and regulations forbidding torture.

And waterboarding is torture.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

And waterboarding is torture.

-Jeff
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMiBkg&feature=related

[Lenny]

These people that were tortured were not on a battle-field. They were in a jail cell. They were helpless prisoners.
None of them had ever had the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge and simply say "but I'm innocent, I didn't do anything". They were presumed guilty just because.[quote]

Not simply to be contrarian, but if you read the documents, you are wrong. Those, especially in the beginning WERE on the battle field and THAT is why they ended up in a jail cell. They were prisoners of a battle, like, just outside the door. Down the street. Around the corner. Please don't make it sound like the usual rhetorical and stupidly blind notions that our boys simply grabbed innocents off the street. I get so damn tired of the rhetoric that paints US in such a light. In the beginning those guys in jail were there due to their observed participation in killing and trying to kill US. Yes, I know about US being over there in their country. I read about that part. And if I were them, I too would be doing the same damn thing if I found them over here in my country. But don't lie or mislead IF you have a point. Your ends DO NOT justify such means.
As for a neutral judge. Sure. Where you going to find one in such a setting?

[quote]The military paid people in Afghanistan and Iraq to turn in "terrorists". It has been well documented that many people simply used this as an opportunity to turn in people they had a grudge against and get paid for it. Hell, if we were invaded by folks from China or somewhere and they would pay me to $10,000 to turn in a "terrorist" I'd be darn tempted to turn in that jerk down my road who stands out on the street swiging his beer and yelling at me when I drive past.[quote]

True, and finallly a good point. And when this method was discovered how stupid it was in yielding results it took a real quick memo to put an end to it. Desperate times call......

[quote]Sorry dude-- patriotism is not blindly following a foolish leader while he drags your country down with one disasterous decision after another. Patriotism is trying to save your country from that disaster.

Then fire the 533 punks that voted to go along with The One You Hate Blindly and Most. And then again, when they vote to fund more. Including Your Lady Ship who is going to bow out this month.
And be not disappointed when The Great White Hope is elected and still does not get out as soon as many around here want. He'll STILL be a patriot too, but he'll have an insight into the hell that existed before GW & CO got there. Not that any of this is worth :2cents:

[Lenny]

If the 'body of evidence' is growing, it should be a simple matter for you to present some, here, to back up your claim.

Well, good point, and no I won't. Consider seeking the news, not simply sites that support your position. But then the news does not usually present the "this was discovered via torture" point of origin, although I do recall a rare instance or two. However I do recall hearing, again in the news, that "so and so's interrogation yielded such and such information" and sometimes I recall it indicating it saved lives. Really. But you are right, and I am wrong. I made the positive claim and should be able to google for you, and give to you, a hundred cites. And I won't. If you've not come across that, too bad. I know you want to stick me with the, "neener", so go ahead, but I've not time for it. Believe it or not.
Oh, and did you read the source document?

[Clancy]

There is no evidence to support your position Lenny. Here's what most professionals have to say about the subject;

"Most professionals believe that pain, coercion, and threats are counterproductive to the elicitation of good information," said a summary of the report, "Educing Information, Interrogation: Science and Art."

"Although pain is commonly assumed to facilitate compliance, there is no available scientific or systematic research to suggest that coercion can, will or has provided accurate useful information from otherwise uncooperative sources," wrote one of the study's authors, Randy Borum, a University of South Florida professor who has served as a consultant to the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies.

Moreover, Borum said, numerous studies have shown that pain and fear can mar not only the willingness to give accurate information but also the memory process that yields it up.
https://www.minnpost.com/stories/2007/12/20/412/as_congress_struggles_to_limit_torture_experts_say_harsh_interrogation_tactics_dont_work





Well, good point, and no I won't. Consider seeking the news, not simply sites that support your position. But then the news does not usually present the "this was discovered via torture" point of origin, although I do recall a rare instance or two. However I do recall hearing, again in the news, that "so and so's interrogation yielded such and such information" and sometimes I recall it indicating it saved lives. Really. But you are right, and I am wrong. I made the positive claim and should be able to google for you, and give to you, a hundred cites. And I won't. If you've not come across that, too bad. I know you want to stick me with the, "neener", so go ahead, but I've not time for it. Believe it or not.
Oh, and did you read the source document?

[Lenny]

TIE, you provide the most interesting insight to this dreaded thread and since I can't seem to make those COOL quote boxes, I would like to leave yours intact and try to speak to each point that I can.
All actions by our troops are not outside the scope of judgment, and some here find it hampering the goal. War does go beyond human endurance (hell) and under the 24/7 insatiable media and the light shined will produce a "yech" response. Your example of the animals wearing our uniform hurting a child and killing the family, we both could live our lives and never miss it. We both find hope that our military will handle the issue and dispose of that beast in an appropriate fashion fit for such. Such salacious news impoverishes all, but the president did send us there on our dime, so I guess someone has an agenda to tell us such news. Speculation as to why would yield interesting results.

I am mulling over your impish notion that those people were born vicious, but I am not approaching it from a genetic POV, but rather a world view based on their religion,culture, and ontological view of god, which, for me, can indicate a lot. They are a contentious lot and have been practicing war from the very beginning of time, with the oldest known records in the West!

I diverge. No commander would excuse every act done under their watch, however after reviewing all the Conventions of War by all those White guys, we find ourselves in a "new war" very unlike any previous, or at least since the time of Attila, for even Ghengis had some rules. Asymmetrical warfare and the morality of equal measure of return begs volumes on how to proceed. Last century produced war on civilians AS "collateral damage" being unintended, and we produced long documents on how consenting adults shall carry out killing each other only. But this enemy considers their own population very expendable and utilizes them as protection, thus exploiting our known "weakness" and feeding our press every such instance of any abrogation.
As stated the Rules of War was between consenting adults. These fellows are not playing by such rules. The notion of Natural Law and The Just War is no where in their play book as it was developed in Europe for the last thousand years, so all those rules may stand moot, but we here at home still attempt to play by such rules, thus negating objectives that may be seized.

Your most difficult point for me is "what about the rest of the guys that witness atrocities, do they go along just to get along?" The Boots-On-The-Ground question I would like to side step, but that is not how the game is played, eh? Suffice to say that there are methods to address such, and each man and woman must find it within themselves to stand and be the true stuff they want to be. And not endanger their mission by some nut case yahoo. Tough to do.
You leave us with a choice however Hobbesian it may be, to either get peace via superior fire power, or play by a set of rules that one party finds silly. Or maybe I misread you. In the end, war does nothing to civilize a man towards all that is Good, True and Beautiful. We may be dealing with folks that do not find those to be the ends of civilization and in such, we have to respond. Thanks for posting.


Some recent posts on Wacco have addressed the issues of torture and other war activities. As I understand it, the argument is that, since we’re at war, and war is hell, all actions of our soldiers -- any action taken by a soldier under stress, whether on patrol in Sadr City or guarding inmates at Guantanam -- should be outside the scope of judgment.
Assume for a moment that I accept this. It’s not a big problem for me to hear on the evening news that Marines have raped a child and executed her family to cover it up. I can just put another bite in my mouth. War is hell, and they’ve been sent there by a President who has more inside info than I do, and after all I’m helping to pay the bills.

But as I think about it, it starts to get complicated. Let’s not invoke the Geneva Conventions, which seem to be as passé as the Ten Commandments. And let’s set aside the argument that every killing of every civilian recruits a dozen militants. Can’t prove that: maybe these people were just born vicious.

But what about the military’s own codes of conduct? Were these put in place by squishy Liberals, or by commanders over decades and centuries with experiential expertise in organizing and disciplining huge masses of men in hellish conditions? Are there commanders today who will actually go on record to state that any act committed by any soldier under any circumstance is excusable because war is hell? And that “Do your own thing” is permissible on the field of battle?

And how does this apply to the guy who doesn’t rape the child or shoot her family, but whose buddies did? Has he, by signing up, agreed to keep his mouth shut, to be complicit in any act that stems from war, to fill out his service, go home, and live with his own guilt and his nightmares? Does every enlisted man agree, because war is hell, to become demonic?

And whom are we bringing home? People so traumatized by what they’ve seen or what they’ve done that, one way or another, they flush themselves down the sewer in record numbers, with scant help from the guys who sent’em there. If I were in their place, “We support our troops” would ring pretty hollow. WWII vets came home to the GI Bill. Vietnam vets came home to vilification. Iraq vets come home long enough to be sent back.

I think we do have a choice. We can become the most vicious monsters on the face of the planet, supplemented by the firepower whose expense is destroying our own way of life in the fear that everyone else is bent on destroying our way of life, and the hope that unbridled bestiality will cow those bastards. Or we can adhere to a morality that, for a few centuries at least, has sometimes been honored in the observance.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Ps- Personal opinion only. I have no proof that any of this is true. I belong to that portion of the population who are reputed to have corrupted this nation (oh what power we must wield!) and who are now, according to another post, being rooted out.

[Lenny]

I think the Geneva Conventions did attempt to create a layer of morality over what I believe to be immoral acts (that is, acts of war). The outlawing of poison gas and torture was indeed, moral. But then, civilians aren't supposed to be targets, and increasingly, civilians are targets and primary casualties in wars, which make war that much less moral in modern times.

First, Jeff, I am blaming YOU. If I can't get those cool quote boxes and YOU can, then it MUST be your fault. See my "
" marks? But NOOOOO, it won't work for me! Even ED can do it!!!
But in any case, your issues are most interesting in light of my latest hobby: find out what is "moral" in war. Or anything, really.
This is THE WRONG site to do so, BUT "morality" is based on "shared values". Pure and simple. The hare-brained chatter of irresponsible frivolity, otherwise known as the hippy dippy notion of "morality being whatever" is simply childish, but the only reason I mention it is due to numerous posts I've seen positing such.
The Geneva Conventions are based on a couple of things, the past practical operations of wars up to then, technology in killing, and bunch of other stuff I am sure you can add to, but they were built upon a 12th century scholar by the name of Thomas Aquinas who wrote about Natural Law (often hooted at now, but rarely abandoned due to its pervasive notions) and The Just War, which is
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.[quote]War is unnecessary. We'll do better without it. Better to avoid giving enemies such wonderful propaganda and recruiting tools. I agree that every tortured innocent produces another dozen terrorists. The actual number barely matters but the point is that innocent victims are infuriated and so are their families and friends. We, the citizens of the US, are paying for the torture and murder of innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere. Therefore we are paying to create reasons for terrorists and other potential enemies to recruit foot soldiers. This is a grave error and it is our moral responsibility to do everything in our power to stop it.

Your assertion that war is unnecessary may be true, but history across the planet doesn't support you. War MAY BE the ONLY thing we do! I recall since BC went to AD, there've been about 18 years of peace! or some such stat.
Your above quote (sans cool quote box) is bit much. We are not torturing every critter that crosses our path, and not all tortured are as innocent as you wish to paint. Come on, man, be reasonable.


Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the entire world supported us. Now nearly the entire world believes we are the greatest terrorist nation on the planet. That's the work of BushCo. We have a lot of healing to accomplish and we could start by following our own laws and regulations forbidding torture. And waterboarding is torture. -Jeff
Yes, waterboarding is torture. Didn't mean to sound as if it wasn't. We part with the idea the world supported US. I have no idea what that means. The UN supported US, but I scoff at that body of clowns and have no respect for them. Nor do I undestand your notion that "other nations believe we are the greatest terrorist", and why should I care what they think? We've given the world more money, prior to 9/11, and since the 1940's and yet we were hated in most every place outside of Europe. So? Don't care if they hate US as well! Nations are not here to be loved. If we were admired, that would be cool, but since we can't stay out of other people's biz, then I suppose other emotions could be spoken of, but so what? I kind of like Disraeli's notion that nations have no friends, just sometimes allies.
I find your stuff good, but, Jeff, you got to give up the "hate Bush" stuff. It won't do you righteous. Lay it down, bro.

[Lenny]

Thanks for the article. One minor quote:
Bush administration officials insisted last week that the CIA's interrogation methods have been "lawful," and they have extracted valuable intelligence from senior al-Qaeda terrorists, the Associated Press reported."
The refutation that ALL BushCo pronouncements are lies is too conspiratorial for me.

Furthermore, the main news media, as previously stated, has also reported same. Also, if you read the source document of THIS thread you will also note that the interrogation of just one of the guys DID yield valuable information, then it may have some sustainability with you, eh?
Other reports from independent news folks in the field have also stated same.

If it did not, what would be the pay value of continuing to torture? If anything it would be a lose-lose issue, no? Thank about it. For awhile this administration tried to figure out ways to extract information that most would call torture and tried to worm it's away around it, and had some measure of success, not only in extracting information, but figuring out what is torture and what isn't. This portion of the thread is getting to be torturous, but it is not torture.

Lastly, your professor quotes below are true, but probably in a different setting, such as court which has stringent rules which are very different from Department of Defense rules and objectives. Certainly it speaks about "settings" and we don't run EXPERIMENTS in torture to create the various "settings" to check for veracity. I noted in your cite that the base referral is for a victims of torture organization, the head of which may be questionable relative to the criteria of objectives in their methodology and findings. As a "staunch(ly) committed advocate of human rights" I am sure he has his grants to obtain and does not wish to befuddle the purse that pays him.
The weighted question of what constitutes "good information" is itself questionable, no? Besides, as previously stated to you, the FBI utilizes different criteria for different objectives, and the DOD is asking directed and pointed questions, not EDUCING information, but seeking the real deal.

Or it could be the definition of a sadist is what the torture victim is all about: a sadist is someone who is nice to a masochist. :wink:


There is no evidence to support your position Lenny. Here's what most professionals have to say about the subject;

"Most professionals believe that pain, coercion, and threats are counterproductive to the elicitation of good information," said a summary of the report, "Educing Information, Interrogation: Science and Art."

"Although pain is commonly assumed to facilitate compliance, there is no available scientific or systematic research to suggest that coercion can, will or has provided accurate useful information from otherwise uncooperative sources," wrote one of the study's authors, Randy Borum, a University of South Florida professor who has served as a consultant to the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies.

Moreover, Borum said, numerous studies have shown that pain and fear can mar not only the willingness to give accurate information but also the memory process that yields it up.
https://www.minnpost.com/stories/2007/12/20/412/as_congress_struggles_to_limit_torture_experts_say_harsh_interrogation_tactics_dont_work

[Zeno Swijtink]

US Accused of Holding Terror Suspects on Prison Ships (https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights)

DUNCAN CAMPBELL and RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR - The Guardian (U.K.)

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate's story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. "One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo ... he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo."

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.

"Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism."

The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly."

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships." However, he added that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put on ships "for a few days" during what he called the initial days of detention. He declined to comment on reports that US naval vessels stationed in or near Diego Garcia had been used as "prison ships".

The Foreign Office referred to David Miliband's statement last February admitting to MPs that, despite previous assurances to the contrary, US rendition flights had twice landed on Diego Garcia. He said he had asked his officials to compile a list of all flights on which rendition had been alleged.

CIA "black sites" are also believed to have operated in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

In addition, numerous prisoners have been "extraordinarily rendered" to US allies and are alleged to have been tortured in secret prisons in countries such as Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt.

[Lenny]

It saddens all of us, but it's necessary to know.
Thanks for posting it, Zeno.