The boy has gone off the deep end here. I won't post a long retort. I don't believe in torture. U.S. law says that "water boarding " is not illegal ( I think it was allowed in the old days in my fraternity hazing, also). If you think it should be illegal, change the law (which I think Obama just did, except he allowed a waiver whenever it is necessary, what ever that means...did Bill Clinton sneak back into office while I wasn't looking?).
But criminalizing the lawful (at the time) acts of the opposing party when one party gets the power to do so, and then executing the past president for "war crimes", puts us a huge step backward to the modus operamdi of banana republics. And the reference to the Japanese leaders tried for war crimes "which included water torture" is really misleading. That's like saying a convicted serial murderer was executed for crimes that " included assault for punching a man."
First of all, I did not say anything about "executing" anyone. I merely said there should be a trial. For all I know, all parties will be acquitted, or the sentences will be minimal.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I urge you to read the Washington Post article I cited, which was written by U.S. judge and former JAG in the National Gaurd Evan Wallach. U.S. and international courts have repeatedly found waterboarding, explicitly, to be illegal and a violation of human rights. Many examples of this are listed in the article.
I concede that Tojo's other crimes vastly outweighed the crime of water torture. However I also mentioned the lower-ranking Japanese soldiers who were sentenced. Many of them went to jail for torture and their convictions relied critically on American soldiers' testimony of being waterboarded.
Again I urge you to read the Washington Post article, which has many more examples. In one case brought against a former Philippine president, a U.S. District Court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
Even if we ignore these facts, and pretend that torture was legal under U.S. law at the time, it is still a violation of international humanitarian law. "Criminalizing the lawful (at the time) acts of the opposing party when one party gets the power to do so," is precisely what happened after WWII. The waterboarding of American pilots by Japanese prison-guards was perfectly legal in Japan at the time. Yet those guards were tried; some were acquitted, some went to jail.
Also, I'd like to hear your view on what I think is the central question: Is waterboarding torture? Much hinges on the answer to this question.
ReplyDeleteYou say you don't believe in torture, but you don't say if you think waterboarding is torture. You also say "If you think it should be illegal, change the law". But what do you think--should torture be legal, or not?
Sorry to join the conversation late. This is in response to the initial posting on torture by Freyguy:
ReplyDeleteI won’t argue torture with you because, well, it seems indecent to do so and would be psychologically torturous for me. However, I do want to take issue with a few of the points you made.
First, I wish people would drop the nonsense that torture doesn’t work. Sorry, but that just defies logic. Do people lie under torture? Sure. And treating teenagers with love doesn’t mean that they will tell you the truth when you asked them where they’ve been and what they were doing. But even lies can turn out to be useful information. In any event, apparently waterboarding, whether or not you want to consider it torture, was effective in eliciting useful information from Khaled Sheik Mohammed so there must be something to it.
Second, our enemies do not seem to care about any civilized rules of engagement, so I am not persuaded that our service personnel would be treated better when captured if we treat all within our custody in a kindler, gentler manner. Would that encourage our enemies to tie the blindfold a little less tightly or use a sharper sword before the beheading?
Third, any form of punishment can be construed as torture by someone: spanking a child, a timeout that lasts too long (whatever ‘too long’ is); etc. So I don’t know if torture is a black and white issue.
Which brings us to the idea of punishment after the fact. Intelligence services deal with areas where the lines are not clearly drawn. If you want to retroactively prosecute someone for a war crime you should make damn sure that: (a) it was a war crime at the time it took place and (b) the accused knew or should have known it was a war crime. (Soldiers who used poison gas during World War I were not tried as war criminals even though the practice was subsequently outlawed.) Since there was a memo authorizing waterboarding and since it seems to still be an issue that is not universally agreed upon, you would be very hesitant about retroactive prosecution. There is always a balance to be struck. If you punish risk, people will stop taking risk. I do not want our agents running amok, but I also don't want them afraid to act for fear that an action that appears to be legal today will land them in jail (or bankrupt them with legal fees) because some Senator or Congressman wants to make a point, particularly after the danger has passed. I think it is unfair to the agents and I think it is too big a risk for the nation to take in the middle of two wars. Remember, even Lincoln was not above suspending rights during wartime.
And one last point Freyguy: it never sounds corny to say that you love America. Just ask The Old Man.
Waterboarding may have been an effective method to elicit information from those people, but I do not at all like the practice of fighting the perpetrators of inhumane acts with inhumane acts of our own. It is hypocritical and in my opinion not the long-term best strategy to take. America needs to defeat the people committing these inhumane acts with the principles that make this country great.
ReplyDeleteThe Grad student misses the point in his "The Water Torture". Fred R. already providd an excellent rejoinder. The point is to not change the rules after the game has been played to "get" those leaders with whom you disagree. We have a system in this country to deal with leaders with whom we strongly disagree...it's called elections. We even have a system to deal with leaders who we believe commit crimes in office...it's called impeachment. But notice that the Democrat controlled Congress never initiated impeachment hearings while Bush was in office. Elect leaders who believe as you do, change the law or the application of the law, and move forward. Your guy won. We have one party rule....the president, the house, the Senate, the appointment of the judiciary, and the media. Look forward. But, I suspect that is part of the problem. The liberals suddenly have no one to blame...a pretty scary thought for them. Don't despair...there's always "business" to kick around.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Man
The Old Man is absolutely right to point out that the Democrats never initiated impeachment hearings while Bush was in office; I enthusiastically join the Old Man in his criticism of this inaction (not to mention the inaction of every Congressperson, Republican or Democrat, with integrity and a conscience). An investigation should have started the moment the CIA memos were leaked in October 2008. Fortunately the suspects' whereabouts are still known.
ReplyDeleteFred -
First of all the issue (non-issue, in my opinion) of whether or not 'waterboarding' is torture is paramount. If it is torture, it has always been a serious crime, in spite of the many rationalizations/justifications offered for it. If it is not torture, then all your (and the Old Man's) other points are moot.
But addressing your points in turn:
1) Lies are not so useful when they are mixed in with the truth and you can't distinguish between them. Being led on a wild goose chase is often worse than getting no information--especially when the witch-hunt harms the very people whose 'hearts and minds' we are trying to win. CIA, FBI, and counter-terrorist experts explain why torture doesn't work in the articles I cited. Also see: "5 Myths About Torture and Truth" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_2.html
2) We will probably have many enemies in the future besides Al Qaeda. They are now on notice: the US tortures. It also ruins our credibility. Consider a recent case where the FBI prosecuted Liberian torturers for roughing up their victims and burning them with a cigarette, etc. in Oct. 2008: http://miami.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/mm20081030a.htm
The methods of torture those Liberians were convicted of are no more severe than the water torture.
3) US and international law provides an explicit definition of 'torture'. 18 U.S.C. 2340 of the US federal penal code defines 'torture' as:
"an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control"
The logical acrobatics required to make 'waterboarding'--the next step up after the rack, as far as the Spanish Inquisition was concerned--not fit the longstanding legal and commonsense definition of 'torture' are insurmountable. That is why neither the Bush administration nor anyone speaking in its defense has attempted the feat. Instead, the standard defense is like this: question whether 'waterboarding' is torture--without entering the dangerous territory of actually addressing that question (and the crux of the issue). Next, rationalize/justify torture the same way it has been done by every war criminal in history.
The method of 'waterboarding', specifically, has come up in US and international courts. There was never a controversy as to whether or not it is torture. Again I urge everyone to read the references I cited: US courts have convicted people (including a foreign head of state) of 'waterboarding'.
-Freyguy