By Edward
So the bad apples have been isolated, there is no connection to the top brass, and stricter guidelines have been put in place to keep incidents like those that happened at Abu Ghraib from happening again. All is relatively well in the world with regard to America’s relationship to torture. At least according to the recently released report by Navy Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, who "conducted more than 800 interviews and reviewed the conclusions of several other investigations."
Church concluded that no civilian or uniformed leaders directed or encouraged abuse, and his report holds Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top defense leaders largely blameless on the narrow question of pressuring interrogators as well as the larger matter of interrogation policies.
"We found no evidence to support the notion that the office of the secretary of defense (or other military or White House staff) applied explicit pressure for intelligence or gave ‘back channel’ permission to forces in the field in Iraq or in Afghanistan" to exceed the bounds of authorized interrogation practices, the report said.
But if that’s the case (i.e., those we elected are not responsible), why do even I still feel the need to shower every time this subject comes up? Can all of the abuses now coming to light really be dismissed as merely a lack of expertise and oversight? Who are these bad apples cropping up in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, and even the CIA? What’s it say about our culture or our military in general that bad apples are so plentiful? Are our troops really just that stressed out or undertrained? Why isn’t that seen as a crisis?
The report’s conclusion hinges on this one statement:
We found no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse.
Now that can be read a few different ways, one of which is that our people in the field are ignoring the approved interrogation techniques of their own free will. But here, I start to recall Tom Cruise getting in the face of Jack Nicholson with
"You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die."
Yes, it’s just a movie, but it nails the assumption we have about discipline in our military. How wrong is that assumption?
Now, I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but I offer it solely to explain why I find it hard to accept this report at face value. I watched one time with my own eyes, during a debate, how callous Bush is about human life, when he considers a prisoner beneath contempt:
No. We’ve got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what’s going to happen to them? They’re going to be put to death.
That degree of avarice for blood is so incredibly foreign to anything I believe is right or proper or appropriate for a person charged with making life-and-death decisions. (The fact that he clearly had no idea his glibness would horrify people was very telling, IMO.) And so, Yes, I believe the fish stinks from the head down, and yes, I believe the Commander-in-Chief’s attitudes influence the entire culture of the military, and yes, I reject the findings of the Church report as irrelevant to the question at hand: who’s responsible for the widespread use of torture by US troops, for the crimes they commit in the name of protecting us? The same person who takes credit when they accomplish their missions, IMO.
A bit off topic but I was appalled a week ago when Keifer Sutherland’s character (a govt. agent) tortured a Brit businessman on ’24’ in a hotel room. He took the lamp, spliced the wires and stuck them on his chest and shocked him repeatedly. On top of this, the man was innocent and after this becomes his buddy helping him out! Only in the minds of Neocons and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network. You will notice this isn’t even being discussed anywhere and it’s pathetic. Let’s get Americans anesthetized to torture!
Edward: and stricter guidelines have put in place to keep incidents like those that happened at Abu Ghraib from happening again.
Do the guidelines begin with “Soldiers are strictly forbidden to bring cameras into the areas where prisoners are held”?
Wilfred: You will notice this isn’t even being discussed anywhere and it’s pathetic.
Actually, Calpundit had a couple of posts on this, if you’re interested. Though discussion on those threads tends to be fast, furious, and spiked by trolls.
no civilian or uniformed leaders directed or encouraged abuse
This report seems limited to Abu Ghraib. It also concludes the compliance with torture guidelines at Gitmo has been “exemplary.” It does not seem to have paid any attention to the White House torture memos.
Very thorough.
Wilfred: your observation wasn’t *exactly* off topic: tolerance for torture has taken root astonishingly quickly. Was the businessman of Middle Eastern descent?
I had a wonderully candid conversation with a smart young man who’d come back from Reserve duty with the military police in Iraq. He said that to active duty MPs, “it’s very simple. Arabs are bad, and what we do is arrest them.” That equation — put whatever verb in place of “arrest” as seems appropriate — comes from the top, as Edward says: and it began even before we knew who the perps were on September 11.
He took the lamp, spliced the wires and stuck them on his chest and shocked him repeatedly
i wonder: in the Real World, wouldn’t that trip a circuit breaker the first time the wire hit the skin ?
Pointed topic, pointed commentary. Good work on a bad subject. More on this here.
italics begone!
“On top of this, the man was innocent and after this becomes his buddy helping him out!”
Oh, I am never certain of twists on “24” til the season ends. Jim Henley has also been all over “24” torture plots.
There is plenty of evidence that cheap sadism and bullying are a permanent and constant part of our President’s character. Constant: I have never yet encountered anyone who would say that the insulting nicknames Bush gives to inferiors would be acceptable in a professional or corporate environment.
Ask for cites, please: I will happily fill the thread with anecdotes.
OTOH, I doubt very much that field officers are directly motivated or influenced by our President’s contemptible behavior.
cleek, I can testify that an electric shock from a wall socket does not necessarily blow a fuse or trip a breaker. I speak from experience.
OTOH, I doubt very much that field officers are directly motivated or influenced by our President’s contemptible behavior.
Even when calculating what they might “get away with”?
Jes, thanks for the Calpundit tip.
And Chris, no not ME, he’s James Frain, the wonderful British actor who also plays American as well (in “Where the Heart Is” opposite Natalie Portman).
“Even when calculating what they might “get away with”?”
Okay. The President’s despicable character is certainly pertinent to policy. Now whether torture is official, unofficial, or semi-official policy, it filtered down the chain of command in some way. Certainly I do not believe ordinary troops and field agents would torture without fairly explicit, if unstated or recorded, authorization from their immediate and closest superiors.
But they did not become sadists because the President is a sadist…they were in their minds in some sense “following orders”. Not having their personalities or consciences altered by Bush’s example.
Maybe this is all you meant, and a fine distinction. But I consider it important. IIRC, many of the SS and Camp personnel found their work disagreeable and unpleasant, but performed “their duty.” I happen to believe it is unnatural for most people to be sadistic. I know some studies show otherwise, I guess.
If George Bush through his leadership and personality is establishing a general tone of exultation in cruelty for its own sake, we should see examples of it in for instance contempt for the poor and longtime Republican Senate colleagues not showing up for Daschle’s retirement ceremony.
If George Bush through his leadership and personality is establishing a general tone of exultation in cruelty for its own sake, we should see examples of it in for instance contempt for the poor
Like this you mean?
Edward, there is nothing wrong with the assumption of ‘disipline’ in the military. It is just you do not understand the military. Without a draft picking a random sample of Americans to serve we get a group that is self-selected. Given that the purpose of the military is to blow up stuff and to kill people it attracks an ammoral type of person more often than not. Or perhaps it gets recruits before their moral sense is fully formed and then creates its own moral monsters. The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” cannot mean the same thing in the military as it means to an average American going about their daily lives. And if killing is ok, can torture really be all that bad?
Can anyone doubt that our military has more than it’s share of youthful versions of George W. Bush? Think of the ‘fun’ at Abu Ghraib – a twenty something Bush would have fit right in. With such people making up the majority of the military, people who do not recognize any moral dimension to their actions, we get officers and others promoted up the ranks with the same sort of moral blindness. It is common knowledge that to be promoted in the service it helps to have a conservative Rush Limbaughesque set of values.
There are of course individual exceptions to this but the military as an institution is rotten with people who see nothing wrong with having a little fun with prisoners, with shooting innocent civilians, abolishing a free press, or with lying about WMD, Jessica Lynch, etc. I am afraid we have let develop, at taxpayer expense, an institution that cannot be fully trusted.
“We found no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse.”
In other words, the fact that we tortured people with “aprovied techniques” is not linked (at least in the mind of the report’s author) with the fact that we also tortured people with unapproved techniques . . .
Just another thought:
When my father served in WWII he saw plenty of action in the Pacific theater. But he never talked about it. This was common among those who served in the war back then. Today we have people in military who pose for their portraits with the corpses of the people they killed.
We used to have a military composed of people who were sick at the thought of killing someone but who did it anyway out of duty and then tried to forget about it. Today we have a military composed of people who are only too happy to kill someone and then want a photograph to remember it by.
Given that the purpose of the military is to blow up stuff and to kill people it attracks an ammoral type of person more often than not. Or perhaps it gets recruits before their moral sense is fully formed and then creates its own moral monsters.
isn’t is strange that a number of these self-selected people all chose, apparently independently, across the globe, to use techniques straight out of CIA manuals ?
Well, we’ve established they’re “bad apples”, Cleek. Perhaps they also stole the manuals?
Perhaps they also stole the manuals?
yep. they all got the idea, independently, to steal the same manuals, and come up with the same techinques for things that weren’t in the manuals.
i know… it’s from watching too much 24 !
Ken- I was going to let your slanders about the US military slide until I saw you compare them to George Bush. The fact is that I never met anyone that low in the course of my military service. You have insulted me sir. Good day!
Have to second Frank’s defense of the fine folks in the military…but we’ve had this discussion before Ken.
Frank and Edward, I am sure there are some ‘fine folks’ in the military. My point is that they are becoming overun by those who do not represent our best values.
Just think about the last election. The entire military service, for the first time ever, engaged in a massive effort to turn out the military vote. They did this top to bottom on an institutional basis. Now knowing that the majority of service personal are Rush Limbaugh conservatives, what kind of values were they promoting here? Not American values. Not Christian values. They were soliciting an institutional endorsement of the very man you describe as ‘callous’ regarding human life. I rest my case.
That degree of avarice for blood is so incredibly foreign to anything I believe is right or proper or appropriate for a person charged with making life-and-death decisions.
Given the ad that provoked the question and the response–a vicious little screed from the NAACP that connected the Byrd killing with GWB’s position on the Texas hate crimes law–it was very appropriate as a reminder that the defendants in the case would have received a less harsh penalty, not a more harsh one, if the loathsome folks who pushed that ad had their way.
Well I think you are still exagerating with “overrun” but your new post makes less sweeping claims than the one comparing military personel to GWB.
Sure we can’t fully trust the proffesional military. The founders pointed that out and they were pretty wise guys.
But most millitary personel are good folks, and while they do tend to get indoctrinated by Rush, many of them actually have the ability to think independently.
I think you are acting like people in the military are torturing/killing for fun routinely. I don’t buy it. The worst you can say about virtually all of them is that they will often follow immoral orders, usually without having thought them through.
Given the ad that provoked the question and the response–a vicious little screed from the NAACP that connected the Byrd killing with GWB’s position on the Texas hate crimes law–it was very appropriate as a reminder that the defendants in the case would have received a less harsh penalty, not a more harsh one, if the loathsome folks who pushed that ad had their way.
Can you elaborate on this?
Are you suggesting Bush releasing pent up anger at the NAACP and not delighting in the fate of the killers?
I’m not sure I know that ad.
Are you suggesting Bush releasing pent up anger at the NAACP and not delighting in the fate of the killers?
I’m not sure I know that ad.
The text–and a few shots from the TV ad–can be found here.
M. Scott,
The tone of that ad is awful, I agree. Playing off the murdered man’s daughter’s grief (and her willingness to let it be exploited) is not something I’d approve of, but if Bush was releasing pent up anger in his debate statements, it seems more like he was angry he had been played, and well, I’m sorry, but that’s politics, and that’s the game he’s chosen to play. The fact that he couldn’t control himself better doesn’t exactly make me more comfortable here.
Edward, you’re the one reading anger into GWB’s statements. I saw the debate live, and his attitude struck me more as more emphatic than angry. He was being criticized for allegedly being soft on hate crimes–he pointed out that in the most notorious hate crime that had been committed in Texas in many years, the perpetrators were facing execution. Regardless of one’s views on capital punishment, that doesn’t sound like being soft on hate crimes to me. Note the next four sentences after the ones you quoted:
A jury found them guilty. It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it’s the right cause. It’s the right decision.
In other words, he was accusing his opponents of being deeply dishonest–and he was right, of course.
How about that colon cowboy Bush’s glee in executing that born again woman? I forget the name, but Tucker Carlson reported on it.
Karla Fay Tucker that was it.
It might be a communication style thing, M. Scott, but watched it too, and my jaw dropped when he said ” guess what’s going to happen to them? They’re going to be put to death.”
Sometimes being folksy isn’t appropriate for the leader of the free world.
“In other words, he was accusing his opponents of being deeply dishonest–and he was right, of course.”
Please. Bush’s answer (“we’ve got one in Texas”) refers to the James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill, which he refused to support publicly because it included sexual orientation among protected classes. He didn’t support it because he didn’t want to offend the Republican religious conservative base during the presidential race. The bill’s sponsors had, after weeks of tough political wrangling, improbably achieved the bipartisan support necessary to pass the bill out of the Texas House of Representatives, not the most progressive institution on the subject of homosexuality. The bill died in the Senate because Bush didn’t want to have to sign it or veto it. Then he goes and takes credit for it during the presidential debates. Who exactly is being dishonest here?
Tammy Faye, or something like that? Yeah, Carlson asked Bush what he thought the woman might say if Bush granted her request for a sentence review; and Bush made a little cowering gesture and said, in a mock-falsetto, “Please don’t kill me.”
It was callous enough that Tucker Carlson – who’s never stopped cheerleading for the Bushies, no matter how much they lie to him and use him – was taken aback.
Folksy, perhaps, but hardly worthy of “avarice for blood.” It was a very precise and correct way to point out his opponents’ dishonesty. The Carla Fay Tucker incident that Frank mentioned would have made your point better, though I must admit lacking any sympathy whatsoever for someone whose case file looks like this. She found God? Good for her. If He exists, maybe she’s with Him now–or caught a glimpse on the way downstairs.
Am I hearing the call for anecdotes and evidence of apparent callousness and cruelty in Bush demeanor? Can oblige, even the clemency process as Bush practiced it in Texas could be counted as evidence.
Although there is plenty of evidence of compassion and kindness. Has everyone heard the anecdote about Bush and gay-bashers at Yale? “Walk a mile in their shoes”
I tend to think exceptions aand incidents are just that, and prove little. What’s important to determining character is the consistent tone of everyday behavior. And from what I have heard Bush is a loner with an off-putting and alienating manner. (Reagan was a loner with a distancing but obviously shallow charm.) Being more like Bush than Reagan, I intuit great potential for cruelty in the man.
Eiland:
Actually, Bush’s point was a non sequitur regarding hate crime, and his behavior was out of line. Forget the NAACP ad, which had its own misleading quality — the issue is that Bush was against hate crime laws that increased punishment for various classes of hate crimes other than capital murder, for which you obviously cannot increase the penalty.
To then defend his position by reference to a capital murder case is dishonest — unless he is advocating the death penalty for all hate crimes.
From the NAACP viewpoint, the Byrd killing was an example of racial hatred that appears in many hate crimes for which they seek a better remedy. They seek a more severe penalty for hate crimes, of which Byrd is the ultimate example. Although Bush’s position would not affect that case, it affected many other cases of hate crimes.
Hmmm…looks like you’ve struck a nerve here M. Scott…I didn’t mean for that to happen.
I’m sure someone will come along to get your back soon…
in the meanwhile:
Folksy, perhaps, but hardly worthy of “avarice for blood.” It was a very precise and correct way to point out his opponents’ dishonesty.
It wasn’t a correct way to discuss the pending execution of three people. It’s not correct for him to appear to delight in it. It should be a necessary evil to him at best. (And, besides, I oppose the death penalty, so to me it was a double horror.)
I’m sure someone will come along to get your back soon…
If not, I’m fine. Assumption of risk and all that. . .:-)
To then defend his position by reference to a capital murder case is dishonest — unless he is advocating the death penalty for all hate crimes.
His opponents brought it into play by bringing up the Byrd case constantly in their arguments–if they wanted to make it about non-murder hate crime cases, they should have stuck to those in their arguments. Instead, they tried to exploit the most controversial and appalling case to try to paint GWB as a bigot, and he threw it back in their teeth. Good for him.
Just found a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the NAACP on this issue, on Arianna Huffington’s site, of all places:
I asked NAACP chairman Julian Bond why hate crime legislation had been moved to the front burner, ahead of more urgent needs. “I grant you that hate crimes legislation is a smaller matter,” he replied, “but if there had been hate crimes legislation, all three of the men who dragged James Byrd to death would have been put to death in Texas.” “But you don’t even believe in the death penalty,” I pointed out. “That’s right, I don’t,” he answered.
Case closed.
If it’s just political hardball, then attaboy for him and tough luck for the NAACP, that’s how the game is played. However, he still deserves scorn for lacking the political courage to support a bill that had the support of both Democrats and Republicans in Texas and came up as a timely and cooperative response to a shameful tragedy. He feared losing religious right votes by appearing to be “pro-gay” more than he valued showing leadership in Texas. And then he goes on and cynically tries to head off a challenging question on hate crimes legislation by (in part) taking credit for a Texas law that he not only did not support, but which he actually prevented from getting passed until he could get out of the line of fire.
“He feared losing religious right votes by appearing to be “pro-gay” more than he valued showing leadership in Texas.”
Or, showed leadership by opposing a law that he thought was useless at best and unjust at worst.
“nd then he goes on and cynically tries to head off a challenging question on hate crimes legislation by (in part) taking credit for a Texas law that he not only did not support, but which he actually prevented from getting passed until he could get out of the line of fire. ”
He didn’t “take credit for it” so much as point out its utter uselessness in the case that the NAACP was trying to get mileage out of.
A hate crimes law should not exist, because a hate crime is really a category of thought crime – punishing real crimes is what the criminal justice system should be after.
A hate crimes law should not exist, because a hate crime is really a category of thought crime – punishing real crimes is what the criminal justice system should be after.
Ignorant nonsense. I often wonder if people who say things like this advocate meting out the same punishment to a someone who brutally murders their wife in cold blood as they would to police officer who kills an innocent bystander while firing at a fleeing criminal.
Intent is the difference between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. We weigh intent and other states of mind in legal cases every day–indeed, doing so is necessary in order to serve justice in a way proportional to the crime.
Hate crimes do not punish thoughts, they punish actions. You are welcome to have the most violent thoughts imaginable, but when you translate those thoughts into actions you are breaking the law. The reason why we treat these crimes more harshly is the same as the reason why we now have laws to punish terrorism more harshly: because these crimes not only victimize the individuals against which they are perpetrated, but terrorize society at large. The intent, both in terrorism and in hate crimes, is to send a message of fear to the target demographic: this could be you.