by Eric Martin
Andrew Sullivan nails it:
We appear to be nearing a happy ending in the case of Roxana Saberi, the American journalist detained by Iran and accused of being a spy. But ask yourself this hypothetical and distressing question.
If Saberi had confessed on Iranian television that she was a spy, and if the New York Times discovered that prior to this confession, she had been kept in solitary confinement in freezing temperatures, had been slammed against a wall twenty times in a row, and had then been shackled from the ceiling for days in such a way that the pain was excruciating, and had been blasted in her cell with extremely loud noises to keep her from sleeping for a week …
… do you think the New York Times would report that she had been "tortured"? Or would they adhere to their current practice and say she had been subject to "harsh interrogation"?
If the leaders of Iran publicly stated that they had succeeded in proving that she was indeed a spy and her confession showed it, would Dick Cheney believe them? And would Bill O'Reilly proudly argue that the Saberi case proves that "harsh interrogation" "works"?
Sure, and Richard Cohen would be stroking his chin writing the Second Worst Op-Ed in the Annals of Recorded History.
I put these two links in the Photos thread but they probably belong here instead:
Lawrence Wilkerson:
Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just “committed suicide” in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi….)
But, we can’t look backwards…
Also Greenwald:
One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up…. It’s the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way (“I know it’s totally unrealistic, but wouldn’t it be great if we could actually convince people that it’s for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?”).
And it just gets better.
It in fact, IS wicked not to care.
in this case, yes indeedy
Here is a thought I like:
Perhaps we could have had that before “harsh interrogations” were instituted.
Sullivan nailed it.
Cheney would have no problem simultaneously defending our torture while condemning their torture. His fundamental principle is that whatever we do is right by definition, while whatever the bad guys do is wrong by definition. Everything else derives from this fundamental truth, thus it is immune to logical refutation.
I think that the terms “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques” are far too harsh, can’t we just call them “a series of unfortunate events”?
Nice job by Sullivan, but it’s not as if this stuff were hard. No one but Dick Cheney could miss these fish in that barrel.
Having suffered through and dissected a fair number of Cohen columns, I think you’re doing him a disservice. He has written horrible pieces in the past, and I have every faith in him that he can “surpass” himself in the future.
“What I have learned . . . “. Well, it must be true because it fits with our narrative. Or, maybe not. We don’t know. But, if enough people make up enough stuff, then we can have a Truth Commission to sort out the fact from the fiction.
Cheney doesn’t deny using waterboarding. He admits it. No need for a Commission on that point. Bush lied like a rug-proven fact.
What is not known–and what in this corner can never be fairly and impartially determined–is to what extent these methods were used, whether they were effective to any meaningful degree, the impact of torturer and victim, the criteria for using these methods, etc.
It bears looking into. The absolutists favor a Truth Commission because they believe the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The Malken Right fears exactly the same thing, because they believe the deal will be rigged from the outset (I don’t know why they think that, I personally believe today’s Democrats are the least partisan of any party in the country’s history. I trust them completely to fairly investigate the prior administration).
Maybe it will be rigged, maybe not. Just like what actually happened–we know something happened and there are charges back and forth, but very little first hand, quantifiable data. It may be every lurid horror story that Sullivan and this site revel in actually happened. If even half of it did, heads should roll.
If, on the other hand, the more aggressive methods were used sparingly and the results, i.e. intelligence that allowed us to prevent future attacks, were objectively beneficial, then we will have a bit of a gray area. Not in this corner, I understand that, but out there amongst the hoi polloi, others will not buy into the absolutist argument and the Malken Right will claim vindication.
Another angle–aside from this issue potentially turning into a winner for the Republicans–is that a Truth Commission and prosecutions are close to if not in fact mutually exclusive.
No one is going to testify if they face prosecution. Anyone who testifies in exchange for immunity is a snitch (so says the person testified against) and also proves the point that not only can torture work, a mere threat to hold someone in contempt and incarcerate or a threat to prosecute, can force people to talk. Whether they tell truth will depend on the bias of the listener and, more validly, whether the testimony can be independently corroborated.
there will be neither Truth Commission nor prosecution. the corner of the rug has been lifted, the broom is at the top of its arc; all the maid needs is for something to distract you.
If, on the other hand, the more aggressive methods were used sparingly and the results, i.e. intelligence that allowed us to prevent future attacks, were objectively beneficial, then we will have a bit of a gray area.
How would you determine “objectively beneficial” under those circumstances?
may be every lurid horror story that Sullivan and this site revel in . . .
Lovely, and not at all insulting.
But your preference — as an officer of the court — for determining what is and is not OK to do based on the opinions of the masses and on whether it gets results, rather than on the law, is noted. Do you happen to have the number for your state bar handy?
How would you determine “objectively beneficial” under those circumstances?
Dick Cheney retains power.
(We are measuring “objective benefits of torture” by the Dick Cheney standard, aren’t we? I don’t believe there’s another one that’s broadly accepted by all torture-using nations.)
my money is on cleek’s prediction.
they chained guys to the floor and shoved stuff up their @sses.
waterboarding is for pussies, if you really want to asphyxiate someone, gag them, wrap them up in a bag, and sit on their chest until the screaming stops.
do we really need to see the new pictures? we don’t know enough already to be f**king pissed off? we haven’t known for six years already that this crap is going on?
and we’re still arguing about whether what’s been done is “torture” or not.
I forget what the latest count is of documented murders of prisoners but I believe it’s in the dozens.
mckinney’s right too, nobody outside of political junkies on blogs gives a crap.
but make our taxes low and let us buy big TVs cheap and we’re happy as pigs in sh*t.
what russell said
russell, I really, really don’t want you po’d at me.
So what we’re getting under Obama are revised military commission trials. More.
I object. I objected under Bush, and I object under Obama. Less unfair injustice is still injustice.
Q: what would it take to set up a Truth Commission ? whose authority is needed ?
“Q: what would it take to set up a Truth Commission ?”
Presumably the president could create one by executive order, by it would perhaps be better to have Congress pass bills creating one, and have the president sign the bill.
Obviously Congress could also simply hold hearings, but that would be even more apt to be accused of partisanship than a TC which prominent Republicans signed off on.
Nothing would or will stop at least some of the 21 percenters from hollering “partisan witchhunt!” no matter what, of course, even if everyone who testifies is given immunity from prosecution. And from claiming that national security is being endangered for some reason or other.
Of course, the whole point of a “Truth Commission” is that no one who testifies gets prosecuted; that’s the inducement to testify fully and truthfully. Keep that in mind.