The “torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved Los Angeles” theory doesn’t work chronologically. The plot was allegedly foiled in 2002. Mohammed wasn’t captured until early 2003.
One of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogators writes an op-ed in the New York Times. He says not only wasn’t torture necessary to obtain the information interrogators needed, it on several occasions produced bad information.
Here’s a terrible story about a U.S. interrogator in Iraq who appears to have killed herself after refusing to engage in coercive interrogation techniques. The story comes complete with all the usual after-the-fact ass-covering by her superiors and higher-ups in the military.
As part of an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request, the Pentagon will soon release more photos of detainee abuse at U.S.-run facilities all over the world.
Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity. Keith Olbermann offers $1,000 for each second he’s under. I find the whole prospect pretty distasteful. This stuff isn’t a game.
Cato’s David Rittgers vs. Bill O’Reilly.
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 24th, 2009 at 9:30 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
I don’t normally care for Keith Olbermann, but I thought his $1000/second offer was an awesome response to that blowhard Sean Hannity. Now either we get to watch Hannity get waterboarded, or else he has to back down, showing what a pussy he is.
Either way, we win.
Regarding the waterboarding of Hannity, I see your point about it’s not being a game. However, since Hannity volunteered, what I would like to see is him being waterboarded until he admits that he is the Craigslist killer.
Instead of the usual show in which the person knows that it will soon end, that would be an effective demonstration of how this torture produces false information.
Well, the timeline works if you make the simple assumption that after the interrogation, Dick Cheney stepped into the a quantum leap accelerator, and vanished. He awoke to find himself trapped in the past, stopping terrorist attacks that once succeeded. His only guide was a hologram named Scooter, and an AI named Rummy.
Or they’re lying out their ass, which is a little simpler, I guess. I like my theory better.
It’s not torture if you get to decide how long it lasts.
Mike
I’m with the top two over there. Hannity’s offer was an arrogant belittling of the seriousness of the torture practice, and Olbermann called his bluff, massively. So either he’ll realize he hasn’t exactly volunteered to shave his head and back out, or else we’ll see him last 10 seconds, tops.
My guess is he’ll go for A.
Thanks for the O’Reilly interview, you reminded me why I stopped watching his show. I think each guest got all of 5 words out in 5 minutes. I liked how even the torture supporter didn’t want to go nearly as far as Bill.
I view this as a good thing, distasteful as it may be. Since he was tortured, McCain has been a consistent opponent of the practice. Any more public figures who staunchly oppose the practice is a Good Thing.
“Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity. Keith Olbermann offers $1,000 for each second he’s under. I find the whole prospect pretty distasteful. This stuff isn’t a game.”
Oh, but it is a game. That’s what makes it bearable.
If it were for real and the people waterboarding you were a sworn enemy that had just invaded and occupied much of your part of the world, it wouldn’t be a game. You would be perpetually counting each minute as possibly being your last.
When Sean Hannity does it, he knows at the end of the day he’s going home, mixing himself a drink, kicking off his shoes, and relaxing in the glow of Fox News beaming from the TV.
There’s no comparison and Sean Hannity is a moron of galactic magnitude.
Well, I’m not as well off as Keith Olberman, but I’ll put up $100 if Hannity stays under for an hour.
;)
Christopher Hitchens had the balls to do it and it changed his mind. This wouldn’t be unprecedented.
This is why Hannity is a blowhard. It won’t be torture because he holds the kill switch.
Waterboard Hannity for 20 seconds longer than when he yells his safety word and you will see one pissed douche bag.
If I’m a Fox personality, I’d have done this stunt years ago. It is a circus show.
my thoughts exactly, chance.
The argument in the first instance holds that the consequences of torturting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed form the basis for any valid moral judgment about torture. In this instance it is suggested that the consequences legitimizing the use of torture were that the City of Los Angeles was saved (whether or not it is true is irrelevant in this particular argument). However, it fails to take into account the consequences of the person who was tortured. Nor does it take into account any long term effects of such action.
Similarly the story about Sean Hannity, his volunteering to be tortured cannot legitimize the action of torture.
In support I submit the following excerpt taken from wikipedia:
William Gass uses the example of an “obliging stranger” who is so obliging as to allow himself to be baked in an oven. Gass claims that the rationale that any moral theory might attempt to give for this wrongness, e.g. it does not bring about good results, is simply absurd. It is wrong to bake a stranger, however obliging, and nothing more can or need be said about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
I’ve got a better idea. Waterboard Hannity for five minutes or until he agrees to vote for Obama in 2012.
Rittgers did a terrible job. The points he should have hit were:
1) torture did not produce good information (the LA example is a good one of how these people are lying)
2) The people who were tortured did not have imminent threat information, they were tortured months after their capture.
3) torture is wrong even if it produces good information – it is outlawed not only because it is morally wrong, but because we do not want this being done to our troops.
4) Waterboarding is torture – cite Korean War and people who have actual gone through the procedure.
5) if we allow our government to torture people because the government says a threat exists, where does it stop? Is there no limit to the government’s powers if a threat is perceived (a threat that the people will never know about or may not even exist)?
The “torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved Los Angeles” theory doesn’t work chronologically. The plot was allegedly foiled in 2002. Mohammed wasn’t captured until early 2003.
That timeline is based on anonymous sources being correct about the 2002 date. Unless the documents are forgeries, I don’t see any reason that the Bush administration would falsify a document that they never intended to release to the public. Occam’s razor would suggest that the 2002 date is either simply wrong or referencing a different plot.
Just a reminder that we prosecuted the Japanese for war crimes principally because they practiced waterboarding: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
“several occasions produced bad information”
Ya think? In the Middle Ages, many confessed to being witches, even though WITCHES DON’T EXIST!
Hut–
I’d add a 6th, which is that you really can’t trust what Cheney has to say about these things anyway. As I understand it, we’ve only really his word that any useful intelligence came of these “interrogations.”
Hitchens said that he doesn’t even remember releasing the “safe switch” (actually a couple of noisy metal bands that clatter loudly when dropped). He just remembers feeling a sudden fear for his life.
In this case, even being able to stop it doesn’t mitigate the horror of the experience completely.
I don’t think Hannity should get the option of a specific thing to admit to (although Craigslist Killer in #2 above is good.)
He just has to keep admitting to anything he can think of, until the people administering the waterboarding decide he’s given up enough.
That should be interesting.
JS, we prosecuted the Japanese after WWII for things that made waterboarding look like a fraternity initiation stunt. I want to see where we prosecuted somebody just for waterboarding. If you get the chance, read a couple of books. “Flyboys” by James Bradley should be the easiest for you to find. Another is “The Ghost of Bataan Speaks” by Abie Abraham. Once you have read those, you will understand what I mean. I have known Mr. Abraham all of my life and have seen the scars that he has from the incidents described in his book.
Matt D – I agree with you, you can’t trust anything Cheney says. And frankly, it seems like Cheney is out there trying to save his ass. My question is when does this debate turn from “did we get good information from this?/did it save lives?” to the more appropriate, “Are we a nation that does something like this?/Is it moral to act this way?”
Ironic that this inhumane behavior comes from an administration that got elected based largely on “values and morals.” But then again irony has been abundant lately.
JS – Yes exactly. At one time we were a nation that recognized that this should not be acceptable.
I would add, not punishing this behavior is tantamount to condoning it. And the consequences of condoning it will be enormous. It will be the nail in the coffin of America’s leadership in the world. (yes, we are strong economically and militarily, but those have begun to shift and morally abhorrent behavior such as condoning this torture will hasten our demise).
I hope that Obama is releasing memos and pictures to build up the public’s demand to see these men thrown in jail because there really is no other solution.
Jim Collins – read the article that JS linked to. Japanese solders were convicted for waterboarding. American solders were prosecuted for waterboard. An American sheriff was prosecuted for waterboarding. Its all there.
Yes, other Japanese did things that were arguably worse. But does that make waterboarding ok? I don’t understand the logic.
I’m so busy today, it makes me sad I’m missing torture day. Just know I disagree with almost all of you.
so this torture huffing and puffing has been going on for more than a week now. i had about enough of it. try and think about it like eating meat and then feeling sorry for the little calf that had to die for your steak. same thing goes for interrogation. you wanna find out stuff and be safe but don’t wanna know how that info is extracted. let’s not kid ourselves, asking KSM nicely what his plans are won’t really help.
as for whether “torture” yields good intel, the jury is still out on that. i guess you might get bad info at some point where the subject wants to put an end to it. it’s the call of the interrogator whether to continue or stop and, like in every profession, there guys that know how to do their job and those who don’t.
If Hannity has a heart attack and Oberman is prosecuted for manslaughter, then it is win-win.
Frank Hummel, this isn’t a ‘you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet’ situation. And it’s not that people are squeamish about the process but like the result. There is no result. That’s the point. You can blithely say “Well, the jury is still out” and put torture in scare quotes, but this stuff IS torture, and they aren’t reliably getting good information.
Just because one guy happened to tell the truth one time while he was being tortured wouldn’t make it a valid thing to do.
This goes back to that 107 comment SCOTUS post Radley made a couple days ago. If the perception of a threat is all it takes to go outside the bounds of the law, then we’re all, as citizens of the US and the World, screwed. All the government needs to say is “Oh, sorry, we thought that might be dangerous” and there’s no accountability. This is a very poor precedent to set.
@27
“i had about enough of it.”
Ok, we’ll be more respectful of your feelings.
What’s everyone think about American Idol?
#29 “…one guy happened to tell the truth one time while he was being tortured…”. Everyone tells the truth once you apply some pressure. I guess the interrogator’s skill is to know when to stop.
“but this stuff IS torture” on this I agree with you. we both are civilized people and value human life. However, most americans have to realize that there’s other places in the world with values totally different than theirs. whatever methods were listed in the report are totally unpleasant but not what some would call real torture.
Invading someone’s personal space, slapping your palm aganst the desk in front him, might work for little Billy at the downtown police station after he stole a Mars bar from teh convenience store. will probably be totally ineffective against a real enemy.
I tend to think there are probably some circumstances in which torture is warranted. I also think those circumstances are probably exceedingly rare, almost to the point of non-existence.
However, “almost” non-existence is “existence,” and therefore I can’t say unequivocally that I wouldn’t support torture no matter what. In theory, if we provide for due process (e.g., a torture warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on heightened evidence standards, maybe even higher than “reasonable doubt”), then I would be open to the idea of torture of terror suspects in principle.
That said, I simply don’t know enough to say whether such practices work or not. If not, then the issue is moot (why would anyone want to use an ineffective tactic?). But if it does work, the only question is when, if ever, it should be used. I just don’t think “never” is a responsible answer, but the zeal with which the conservatives seem to approach the issue is at least as irresponsible.
Phelps @ 17,
Patterico (patterico.com) is on this today.
When it comes to national security stuff, Radley’s quickness to sign on to whatever lunatic left meme Sully does is quite silly. Politically I agree with almost everything on this site (especially compared to the aforementioned Patterico), but Radley’s ability to parse b.s. cop speak is equally matched by his eagerness to uncritically cite Slate, Salon, LA Times, NY Times, etc. hit pieces. Weird dichotomy, really.
Also, Ken at the most excellent blog Popehat had a very well thought out post skeptical of the CIA’s claims a few days ago.
Greg N., I’m with you. I suspect the truth here, like always, is somewhere in the vast middle between the warmongers and the blame America crowd.
Greg N.
If torture is acceptable for you sometimes, the question becomes when and who decides? What government would you trust to decide when people can and can’t be tortured? Would you trust Bush? Cheney? Clinton?
Governments cannot be trusted with the power to torture. It will and has been abused. There is no middle ground here. Allowing governments the ability to torture, no matter how much we try to limit it, will lead to abuse. It did in the case we are now talking about. People were abused in an effort to prove a connection with Iraq to justify war. A connection that did not exist.
Torture is not acceptable ever.
Hut,
Great questions, and ones to which I don’t have answers. However, I can imagine scenarios where torture would, in theory, be morally acceptable (pulling off toenails to save 1 million children’s lives, e.g.). The morals change, of course, when we move from theory to practice, and whether the practice yields the results is a fair part of the analysis.
But I don’t see why only torture is subject to the same scrutiny. After all, in the abstract, who would you trust to cage someone for committing a crime? The risks we take when it comes to torture are the same ones we take for all punishments (which isn’t to say torture should be used as punishment, just that the risks are the same). We trust due process to take care of those risks as much as we can in an imperfect world when it comes to punishment, and I think the same due process could take care of the risks associated with torture.
Of course, we’re talking about this on Radley’s site, so we all know of the corruption and mistakes associated with what passes for “due process” in the criminal justice system. But we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because of the potential for abuse of that system, and we shouldn’t make a bright line rule against torture because of the risk of abuse there.
War and punishment for crimes are two things we hope to avoid, but that we recognize are unavoidable. With each comes the potential for abuse, and with each almost certainly comes the possibility of innocent people being hurt or killed (even without abuse). But each is necessary because of the world we live in, and because of that we’ve developed rules to try and minimize the damage associated with mistakes, abuse, etc. We have just war theory and due process, etc. I see torture as another in that list of things we hope to avoid, but that we recognize might – under certain rare circumstances – be unavoidable.
Greg – some intriguing points. The comparison to criminal justice punishment is appropriate and really got me thinking. I think it really gets at the heart of the issue – where do we draw the line and who gets to wield these powers.
I’ll have to think about it more, but my first response is that with criminal justice we:
1) are judged by our peers and not the government (yes there are problems, but this is how it is designed). And I would argue that the reason it is our peers is exactly the reasons we are talking about here – to guard against abuse of power by the government. With torture, it can’t be a jury of peers because it deals with sensitive information and there are no true peers we would be able to get for those being tortured.
2) There are specific guards in criminal justice against “cruel and unusual punishment.” So although it is taking away liberties, which is similar, it stops short of anything that is cruel. I understand that the situations are similar, but in degree they are very different.
I’m not sure where we draw the line, but I do know that some of the stuff we are talking about here – water boarding for example – is over the line. But the point is that a line has to be drawn. If we keep saying, “well, I don’t want to take torture off the table as a possibility,” then I believe that we live in a society that has no moral standard because anything can be justified at some point.
Orwell has become cliche, but this seems to me like a giant leap towards that sort of society. It starts as “the end justifies the means” and quickly turns into “the government justifies the means” because the government is who defines the end goals.
Anyone know what Colonel Jessup was doing at the time Peterson had her “accident”?
Hut,
Great points, particularly point 2. The distinction between being judged by citizens rather than a government judge definitely changes the calculus. Every time I go one way on this, something brings me back the other way.
Sorry, point 1, not point 2 (which was good, just not as compelling to me as point 1).
I don’t think we should design the rules around the extreme scenario where thousands of kid’s lives depend on whether we can legally extract info from some one.
I think we should design the rules for the cases we know exist and for which we have some confidence in the methods (of which torture is not one). Under the worst case scenario, the government would just break the rules anyway. Hell, they break the rules now when the stakes aren’t nearly so severe.
The rules are all we have to make government accountable. They will stretch them as much as they possibly can. To design them for the worse case scenario is like giving government a blank check.
I say no torture period. Of all the methods for gathering intelligence to head off future attacks, I want government focusing on modern refined techniques that are known to be effective and not hoping they can scoop up some bad guys (or good guys) and beat them into giving me a story that supports what I plan to do anyway.
About the Los Angeles torture bit, there may have been a second plot. See Patterico for instance.. Note that i’m not endorsing torture, but I hate seeing faulty arguments used to favor a point I largely agree with.
Pretty scary how I slipped from talking about “them” to talking about me in that last sentence. Maybe I have a split personality and the other one is a republican.
I’m sure the torture news is not missed in the islamic world, maybe Obama’s toothy grin and Hillary’s cackling laugh will smooth things over.
Who knows, maybe we have stirred up enough hatred that we will be attacked by radical islamists, 9-11 and the anthrax mailings were clearly inside jobs
Come on guys, -16? I understand it’s bad karma to not condemn torture as a public figure but at least some of us must see that it has to be a tool in an intelligence service’s bag.
I guess after 8 years most people don’t understand this is an unconventional war. Jeez, talk about assymmetric warfare. How many of you think more was accomplished by flying billion dollar bombers from the US to Afghanistan (I’m not even gonna go into the Irag mess) than by slapping KSM a few times? I can already see the answers.
How many remember when this conflict started being all PC (hint the “war” on terror was not even 2 weeks old, think Infinite Justice).
Also, I would recommed some light reading for you. Might shed some light on a few things. Remember that it was published in 1986.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688092187/theagitator-20/
read the first comment on the Timothy Noah article, or the LAT article Noah links to, to see why the “chronology” argument is misleading.
Yeah, Frank. I realize it is an unconventional war. I also know there are only two ways for an invader to win one, extermination or winning hearts and minds. The B-52s and the torture of KSM were both equally worthless.
You talk a good game, but tell me. Would you personally attach the electrodes to KSM’s genitals and turn on the current? Would you stay in the same room while someone else did? If not, why not?
#47, to answer your question, yes i would. I would feel bad about it, and if anyone who does it does not feel the same way, he/she is a sadistic prick and should not be in the interrogation business.