[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I don’t think anyone at the top of the administration explicitly authorized torture. But I firmly believe they encouraged and condoned it.
[/QUOTE]
I realise there is no moral difference, but is there a significant legal difference? If a fair and equitable courts martial or something like that were to try Rumsfeld Cheney et al for the actions performed by their subordinates, would this defence (“we never authorised it!”) stanf up in court?
I don’t.
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Bullshit. Your citation in no fucking way supports your assertion.
[/QUOTE]
WTF?! You don’t even need to open the link! Just the quoted bit supports Der Trihs’ assertion!
Well, Clinton got a blowjob. And then lied about it under oath. Yeah, it’s the lying under oath part that’s important.
And that justifies every evil deed committed, authorized, or condoned by the Bush Administration. Ever. Remember that. It’s important. (Oh, and if necessary, we’ll reach back and find other Democratic Presidents: JFK, FDR? Oh, Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson locked people up for sedition during World War I! You could look it up!)
Pfui!
I do not personally believe that Bush and Cheney are responsible for every evil from global warming to Mother Teresa’s death – but the partisan waving away of point after point of evidence, and the quick tu quoques, usually but not always about Clinton, are truly disgusting. I want to express my appreciation to the two or three Dopers who adhere to traditional Republican Party principles and who are not blind to what Busholatry is doing to this country.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Well, Clinton got a blowjob. . . .
[/QUOTE]
This is in response to what/who?
I imagine Polycarp was simply pre-emptively giving the stock Bush Apologist(*) response.
(* = Term specifically chosen to annoy Shodan 
)
I can see at least 3l separate issues here:
There is not a clear line that separates legitimate interrogation from torture-- there is a continuum bewteen the two. It appears that the Bush administration did move that line relative to where other people might draw it, thus allowing more aggresive interrogations to take place accross the board, although arguably not really sanctioning torture. Still, reasonable can disagree about where exactly to draw the line, and in some cases I can see the administration’s point, even if I can’t necessarily see it in all cases.
There are some techniques, like waterboarding, that are almost impossible to justify along the lines of item 1, above, and that very few people would not call torture. It appears that Bush has allowed a very limitted use of such techniques on a select group of so-called “high value” targets.
Has the administration been as agressive as it should have been in routing out the so-called “bad apples”? So far it seems to be operating more in a reactive than a proactive mode in this respect, so I would answer “no”, they aren’t being aggressive enough.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I suggest an obviously practical rule-of-thumb test: If your local police wouldn’t be allowed to do X when questioning a suspect, neither should the interrogators of the military or the CIA.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I suggest an obviously practical rule-of-thumb test: If your local police wouldn’t be allowed to do X when questioning a suspect, neither should the interrogators of the military or the CIA.
[/QUOTE]
Another test would be whether you would think it legitimate for the other side to use on your people. (This is just another version of what some Jewish guy said around 2,00 years ago)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
WTF?! You don’t even need to open the link! Just the quoted bit supports Der Trihs’ assertion!
[/QUOTE]
Let’s take a look at it, shall we? I think you’re mistaken.
The only quotation in there from Bush is: “Bush ‘was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,’ Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, Do some of these harsh methods really work?'”
This is not confirmation of Der Trihs’ claim: “Bush seems to have ordered or encouraged torture . . .”
Merely asking if something works, ain’t a recommendation that anyone attempt that something. Kinda like doing feasibility study, even if the study produces a positive conclusion, isn’t an approval to go ahead and execute the project being studied.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I suggest an obviously practical rule-of-thumb test: If your local police wouldn’t be allowed to do X when questioning a suspect, neither should the interrogators of the military or the CIA.
[/QUOTE]
How about: What would Jack Bauer do?
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Merely asking if something works, ain’t a recommendation that anyone attempt that something.
[/QUOTE]
It is if you’re the president. See post #31.
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Let’s take a look at it, shall we? I think you’re mistaken.
The only quotation in there from Bush is: “Bush ‘was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,’ Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, Do some of these harsh methods really work?'”
This is not confirmation of Der Trihs’ claim: “Bush seems to have ordered or encouraged torture . . .”
Merely asking if something works, ain’t a recommendation that anyone attempt that something. Kinda like doing feasibility study, even if the study produces a positive conclusion, isn’t an approval to go ahead and execute the project being studied.
[/QUOTE]
Ordered? No. Encouraged? I think so.
Bush told Tenet he didn’t want to lose face - that is, he wanted Zubaydah to talk, to prove he was a bad guy. Bush wanted him to tell the truth - and I think we know that means what Bush wanted to hear. So, hearing about methods that most of us would call torture, he asked if they really worked. The implication, to me, is that if they really work, use them.
If you were not encouraging torture, you wouldn’t care if they worked, would you? You might say, damn, it would be great if we could do that, but it would be wrong.
It reminds me of Hersh’s article on the plans to attack Iran. The Administration included the nuclear option, which the military wanted off the table. If you’re really against something, you take it off the table. And you don’t do feasiblity studies of stuff you’ll never do, no matter what. One hopes that if you heard of a feasibility study about locking up unruly newspaper reporters, say, you’d get upset without waiting to see if they really do it.
Well, frankly, until we have independent verification that Bush’s query “Do some of these harsh methods really work,” was spoken in the same meeting as this discussion of torture, then all we’ve got is a second-hand opinion of Suskin’s interpretation. Since the link given us is a book review, we’re essentially dealing with third-party information. Friend of a friend of a friend. That kinda stuff is notoriously unreliable.
Well, probably not. Two things, though. Mere comments, even comments made by a president, in a meeting don’t really rise to the level of a commissioned feasibility study, do they? And since they don’t, then all kinds of ideas are kicked around at all kinds of meetings - lots of them totally absurd and never meant to be taken seriously.
Der Trihs believes that citation of his supports his claim, because he’s looking only for confirmation of his strongly held belief. In every circle of even moderately rational thinkers I know, this is called confirmation bias. One tends to see what one wants to see.
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Well, frankly, until we have independent verification that Bush’s query “Do some of these harsh methods really work,” was spoken in the same meeting as this discussion of torture, then all we’ve got is a second-hand opinion of Suskin’s interpretation. Since the link given us is a book review, we’re essentially dealing with third-party information. Friend of a friend of a friend. That kinda stuff is notoriously unreliable.
[/quote]
Quite true. If the situation never happened, all bets are off.
Have you ever had the pleasure of reporting to a high level guy? Many of the ones I’ve dealt with expect their reports to pick up on subtle cues, and they don’t like having to give explicit orders. Tenet was the guy who screwed up by not finding evidence of WMDs that Bush wanted before the war. I think he learned his lesson. You don’t tell your boss his suggestion is absurd - especially since the cite claims Bush really wanted to not lose face.
If these methods would not get the guy to talk, Tenet could have said so. Since he didn’t, the chain of reasoning: Bush wants him to talk; Bush asks if harsh methods will get him to talk; Tenet implicitly agrees that they would; therefore: Bush is encouraging Tenet to use harsh methods. So, if the cite is accurate, it does show that Bush encouraged torture.
I was once on the wrong end of this - doing what I thought a VP said he wanted, and not picking up on what he really wanted. That’s not a mistake I want to make again.
If it’s not too late to get back to the Original Post, Evil Captor asked, “Do any Dopers wish to maintain that the Bush Admin. stands steadfastly AGAINST torture, and is shocked … SHOCKED … at what its people are doing in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?”
I believe the top officers of the Bush Administration stand steadfastly FOR torture. When the anti-torture bill was being considered in the Senate, Dick Cheney was twisting arms all over the building to defeat the bill. Therefore, Cheney SUPPORTS torture. When the bill passed, over Cheney’s protests, president Bush signed the bill. However, he attached a signing notice proclaiming that he could ignore the law if he chose to. Therefore, Bush SUPPORTS torture. The Gonzales memo allowing torture and brushing off the Geneva Conventions has already been mentioned. Therefore, Attorney General Gonzales SUPPORTS torture.
That’s my answer.
[QUOTE=AskNott]
The Gonzales memo allowing torture and brushing off the Geneva Conventions has already been mentioned. Therefore, Attorney General Gonzales SUPPORTS torture.
[/QUOTE]
Does anyone have a non-PDF link to the actual memo in question? I’ve only read a PDF version that was not too legible, but I don’t think that memo actually says what a lot of people think it says. My impression* is that he discusses alternate definitions of torture and refers to certain aspects of the GC concerning POWs that would not pertain to captured al Qaeda supsects. The latter, in particular, I believe to be quite defensible since the limitiations on interogation of POWs is considerably stricter than those on non-POWs.
I think a lot of people like to wave around the famous Gonzales memo because they’ve read somewhere that it “justifies torture”, but they haven’t read the actual memo iteslf.
Note: The link given on page one does not work for me-- I get an expired WaPo web site.
*going from memory because I don’t have an actual copy of the memo handy
[QUOTE=John Mace]
The latter, in particular, I believe to be quite defensible since the limitiations on interogation of POWs is considerably stricter than those on non-POWs.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
Argument in justification? :dubious:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
We’ve been over this a number of times. Read the GC regarding the treatment of prisioners. It forbids, for instance, the granting of favorable status or treatment to those individuals who give more than “name, rank, and serial number”. Your earlier post about not doing what police are not allowed to do to criminal suspects is excatly on point. Police are allowed to offer all sorts of incentives to get criminals to inform on other criminals. There’s a good reason why we don’t want POWs to have to give up military secrets, but terrorists are criminals, not uniformed military men taking place in conflicts governed by the rules of war.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
And I find the fact that they haven’t hastened to stop it to be particularly telling.
[/QUOTE]
What do you propose that they do? Make it a crime? For the record, abuse of prisoners is already a crime.