During last night’s press conference, after reminding everybody to wash their hands, President Obama answered a question by ABC News’ Jake Tapper and set a new direction for the administration. Obama agreed with Tapper that the Bush administration violated international law (torture is also a violation of U.S. federal law).
Jake. Where’s Jake? There he is.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said in the past that waterboarding in your opinion is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do — not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways — in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “we don’t torture,” when the — the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And — and — and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what’s — what’s best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.
And — and so I strongly believe that the steps that we’ve taken to prevent these kind of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term, and make us safer over the long term, because it will put us in a — in a position where we can still get information. In some cases, it may be harder. But part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals, even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.
At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians. And it makes us — it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.
So this is a decision that I am very comfortable with, and I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we’re taking on a unscrupulous enemy.
Okay –
QUESTION: Sorry, sir –
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry.QUESTION: Do you believe the previous administration sanctioned torture?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the — whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.Mark Knoller.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake’s question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others, saying that the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques not only protected the nation but saved lives? And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I — I have read the documents.
And — and there have been no circumstances during the course of this first hundred days in which I have seen information that would make me second-guess the decision that I’ve made. Okay?
The Obama administration is currently and simultaneously advocating these three positions:
- Bush officials ordered torture.
- Torture is a crime.
- Nobody is above the law.
Now there can be no doubt that the perpetrators of the Bush-era torture regime will be prosecuted.
Updates below…
UPDATE: Michael Tomasky of The Guardian points out that despite what Winston Churchill might have said, the British actually did torture some German prisoners during World War II.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald:
Obama’s acknowledgment that Bush officials did indeed sanction “torture” by, at the very least, ordering waterboarding amounts to a clear concession that Bush officials broke the law. When you combine that conclusion with the “nobody-is-above-the-law” mantra they keep embracing, the case for criminal investigations makes itself.
UPDATE: Senator Robert Byrd:
To continue to ignore the mounting evidence of clear wrongdoing is a national humiliation.
…In order to truly clear our good name and put the past behind us, the United States must strive to be sure that this dark period of sick and secretive torture schemes receives the scrutiny it deserves.
UPDATE: Rep. Jerrold Nadler:
President Obama said, “They used torture, I believe waterboarding is torture.” Once you concede that torture was committed, the law requires that there be an investigation, and if warranted, a prosecution . . . . The president stated in so many words: Waterboarding is torture, the previous administration has admitted that it waterboarded, and torture is a violation of international law. Once this is admitted, there must be an investigation. It forces the Justice Department on this path.
UPDATE: A new Pew Research Center survey discovered that a majority of regular churchgoers support torture, with white evangelical Protestants the biggest fans. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back torture.
Views on torture among the public in general remain evenly split.
UPDATE: House Minority Leader John Boehner has posted an alarming new pro-torture video on his YouTube page.
UPDATE: Ari Fleischer says he doesn’t want to see the “acrimony and blame-gaming” of torture investigations. But he’s ready for them to bring it on.
#1 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 13:01
Obama did not say that the Bush Administration sanctioned torture. He goes to great lengths to dodge the question and does it (quite nicely) twice.
The first leg of the stool fails. Despite the truth of the following two statements, without the first, the entire argument is moot.
For example:
Richard is an Arizona resident.
Richard knows it’s a crime to avoid paying State taxes.
Richard didn’t pay Arizona State taxes.
I realize that you are passionate about this issue, Richard. Honestly, I’m not. Though I disagree with your position, I’m just trying to help you refine your argument.
#2 by Richard Warnick - April 30th, 2009 at 13:10
jd–
President Obama indeed failed to answer Jake Tapper’s question the first time, but he did answer it on the follow-up.
#3 by Larry Bergan - April 30th, 2009 at 13:30
Aren’t we supposed to be talking about swine flu?
#4 by Richard Warnick - April 30th, 2009 at 13:36
I mentioned that the President wants us all to wash our hands.
#5 by Larry Bergan - April 30th, 2009 at 14:17
I guess John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales and Jay Bybee should wash their hands too.
#6 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 14:32
And the Vice President wants us to stay out of public transportation.
Richard, President Obama didn’t answer the question. He pulled a “Richard”. He referred back to his previous non-answer.
You must be proud.
#7 by Becky - April 30th, 2009 at 14:38
This is astonishing information . . . and yet I believe it may be true judging from all the religious types I see in the blogosphere.
#8 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 14:43
A majority of Americans do too. Something like 71%. I’ll find the poll for ya.
I’m betting that they are willing to entertain the Dershowitz Hypothetical, even if Richard isn’t.
#9 by cav - April 30th, 2009 at 14:55
News on freeper blog: While visiting Mexico, Obama shook the hand of a gentleman, who died the very next day with flu-like symptoms.
I’m tellin ya, you can’t make this stuff up.
#10 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 14:57
Ah. Here you go.
Turn this into a binary equation and you have:
15% Often
34% Sometimes
22% Rarely
___________
71% of Americans who can justify torture under some circumstances.
Note that the researchers didn’t ask about barking dogs, caterpillars, slapped faces and being in close proximity to women. They asked about “torture”.
#11 by Richard Warnick - April 30th, 2009 at 15:03
jd–
You reinterpreted the poll. Also, I wish they had bothered to ask if anybody knows torture is illegal under federal law and international treaties, including one signed by Ronald Reagan!
It’s a 49/47 percent split between often/sometimes and rarely/never.
Dershowitz’ pro-torture fairy tale (from 2001) was torn to shreds years ago. It’s not necessary to debunk it anymore.
#12 by cav - April 30th, 2009 at 15:04
Now that that’s settled, I supose reverting to the Christian-like enhanced interrogation techniques should be a snap.
#13 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 15:10
You are correct about the split, Richard. But look at the poll as a binary equation.
Either you torture or you don’t. There is no “sometimes” or “not lately”.
Which makes it 71% in favor.
Dershowitz offered a hypothetical which, to this day, you are too chicken to even answer.
I’m guessing that’s because you’re one of the 22% who say “rarely” – which really is an admition that you would torture if circumstances were emergent and exigent. Of course, that might expose you as a hypocrite.
I’ll let you hide in the closet.
#14 by Richard Warnick - April 30th, 2009 at 15:13
jd–
Guess all you want, but you guessed wrong. There is not one credible intelligence interrogation expert who says torture is a valid interrogation technique. And there is a vast body of legal experts who can tell you it’s illegal (just don’t ask Bush’s lawyers, they are hacks).
#15 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 15:17
Cav? Can we agree that playing on someone’s phobias is an element of the “Enhanced Interrogation” methods we’ve been discussing?
For instance – if there is a cultural phobia about dogs, bugs, women or nudity, exploiting that phobia was part of “Enhanced Interrogation”, right?
And according to many, that is “torture”. Yes?
If so, wouldn’t a police officer exploiting a suspect’s fear of prison (or rape in prison) be the same thing?
If, for instance, a detective accidently had a colleague march some “super scary inmate” into an interrogation – and then casually mentioned that he might be the interviewee’s new cellmate if the interviewee wasn’t more forthcoming…
Wouldn’t that be exploiting a phobia?
Wouldn’t that be torture?
#16 by cav - April 30th, 2009 at 15:18
Ok, another hypothetical: Suppose you soul-mate was locked in a closet, and you had osama bin laden by the throat, with thirty seconds until your S.O. dies of suffocation. Clearly, there’s not enough time to set up the waterboarding rig…What do you do?
#17 by jdberger - April 30th, 2009 at 15:19
Richard doesn’t answer those questions, Cav.
He continually insists he’s not Jack Bauer.
He doesn’t respond to (though he likes to post) fiction.
#18 by cav - April 30th, 2009 at 15:30
Forgive me, the porcine plague is not the only thing biting on some of us these days. I’ll try to be a little more serious. I can’t make any promises though.
In a pinch or as policy, so defined that even the creature legs have been counted, are two quite distinct scenarios.
Now I understand the memos were contrived to give those CIA interrogators coverage, at a time when it looked as though the might not have any. Approved after the facts, along with a number of other elements that back-dated other ‘crimes’, the whole operation just stunk from the get go.
So I’d probably wring some neck in a pinch and let the devil take the hindmost. That is not what was happening however.
#19 by Larry Bergan - April 30th, 2009 at 15:34
Thanks cav! I’m not going to get caught in that scenario, I’m going to build my waterboarding bench right now!
#20 by Richard Warnick - April 30th, 2009 at 15:39
Brandon Friedman has the answer to beat all answers:
Torture Advocates will Set the Military Back for Generations
You can forget Jack Bauer, you can forget Alan Dershowitz. In the real world, our soldiers will suffer for the crimes of the torturers.
#21 by Larry Bergan - May 1st, 2009 at 01:11
We’ve only been torturing for a relatively short time, but anyone directly or indirectly involved as a recipient of that practice will distrust us until their deaths. If I had been flippantly waterboarded hundreds of times, I would have a clear objective until I was absolutely sure the country that did that to me had prosecuted the parties involved to the full extent of international law set up by the offending party: US!
#22 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - May 1st, 2009 at 02:12
Another word for binary equation: polarization. It is fallacious to break everything down into polarized polemics, jd, especially in semantics. Let me help YOU to “refine your argument,” by the way of some deconstructive syllogisms:
JD built his own straw men. . .
1) Not all enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.
2) Playing on a person’s phobias is an enhanced interrogation technique.
Therefore. . .
3) Playing on a person’s phobias is not necessarily torture.
Furthermore, even if it was:
1) Not all fears are phobias.
2) Playing on a phobia may be considered torture.
Therefore. . .
3) Playing on a fear is not necessarily torture.
Nevertheless, I must concur that, generally speaking, playing on a person’s fear of prison rape to extract information is inappropriate–albeit nothing comparable to playing on a phobia or genuine physical torture (such as waterboarding).
This comic strip sums up a lot of the torture argument quite succinctly.
Public Perception: the Perfect Fallback Position
In any case, public perception does not make law. 71% of the people notwithstanding, constitutional obligations to a host of treaties supercedes presidential discretion. Of course, the constitution is just another one of those ethical absolutes we were talking about on the other thread–a “principle,” I believe they’re called. An ethic that goes something like: No one is above the law as long as it is formally mutable, even if it is imperfect. Absolute ethics are created when the alternative is unmanageable. Discretionary torture is unmanageable.
Equivocation and Dershowitz
Equivocation, JD! It would be preferable if you would take a definitive stand on something, instead of arguing ambiguity and senseless categorizations. Honestly, I don’t know what you want anyone to say about the Dershowitz Hypothetical. Where do I start deconstructing this one? Um. . .how about with a list?
1) The terms for receiving a warrant would have to be lax to compensate for ticking time-bomb immediacy.
2) The terms for receiving a torture warrant should never be lax.
3) The conditions of the hypothetical are met with our present system. Jack Bauer may not be innocent, but he’s justified (Presidential pardon, anyone?).
4) The conditionals of the hypothetical are vastly unlikely to ever be met (prior knowledge of just about EVERYTHING except for that one crucial tidbit the terrorist has in his head–supposing you caught the right terrorist or combination of terrorists in the first place).
5) Constitutional muster. Amendments. Bill of Rights. The whole dang document. Etc.
6) Emergencies would require a bit more drastic measures than waterboarding to provide faster results, producing obviously illegal actions a la “You won’t answer? Hey, Joe! Bring that woodchipper over here. He don’t need no hands to answer a simple question, now does he?” [I apologize to anyone who finds my use of colloquial terms in relation to torturers offensive. It's purely coincidental, and no resemblance to persons on this website or in Texas are intended.]
There. Your precious hypothetical is answered. Let’s move on.
Torture Defined
Let’s be sure what we’re talking about. Torture: a calculated effort to extract information from a detainee by inflicting psychological or physical pain or harm. The momentary outbursts of a Bauer-type individual, while regrettable, are not really torture. I would take away the man’s position of authority or government representation on the first offense, but little more. Planning ahead that, when the next detainee arrives, you’re going to devise a method of putting him in as much pain as possible without crossing a poorly-defined line (one you might even attempt to circumvent, I might add)? That’s torture.
The Challenge (Again)
Please quantify values for me, JD. How many people have to be saved for it to be ok to torture a 15-year old? A 5-year old? What if he’s white? Black? Muslim? Christian? Farmer? Information technologist? Straight-A student? Drug addict? Let’s get some values on the table! Don’t deny me my ridiculous hypothetical, JD. It’s a thought experiment, just like Dershowitz’s. Let’s just not forget that thought experiments are not always applicable to real life.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#23 by Larry Bergan - May 1st, 2009 at 03:58
Tom Tomorrow doesn’t usually include completely fabricated events in his great comic strip, but is the following, something that has actually come out of the torture memos?
The most disturbing thing is that I don’t know, but this could have easily happened under Cheney/Bush.
#24 by Becky - May 1st, 2009 at 04:14
Dwight Sheldon Adams,
This essay and the one on the other thread amount to some pretty remarkable thinking and writing. Well done.
So, JD, that does give you something to chew on. Are you still defending torture? By the way, JD, to comment on your poll, did anyone define torture for the poll participants? We use the word “torture” to describe all kinds of things, from a visit to the dentist to listening to obnoxious music. To just use that word undefined in a poll is far too ambiguous to make the results meaningful.
#25 by cav - May 1st, 2009 at 08:17
Dwight, I especially liked your conclusion (just above).
If a group (even the ’smartest people in the room’) can obsess over such minutiae, it can purposefully overlook the forest.
That does not mean that everybody else will.
Now, can we have some accountability? For God sake.
#26 by Becky - May 1st, 2009 at 08:31
My feelings exactly, Cav.
#27 by unlikely stats - May 1st, 2009 at 08:37
The rearranging of deck chairs c ontinues while the Empire makes its plans.
#28 by cav - May 1st, 2009 at 08:41
Becky, It would be simpler if there were but one thread at a time – I’m bopping all over the place, as I’m sure everybody else is as well, but…that photo of U Utah Phillips reminds me of how much some of us are really missed. Phillips rocked. Big hole.
#29 by cav - May 1st, 2009 at 08:47
Unlikely, There’s always a larger context, always a level where malevolence is ascendant. You know that.
#30 by Becky - May 1st, 2009 at 08:49
That is for sure, Cav. I was lucky to see his last concert in Salt Lake, and have posted about him several times on RedStateBlues. I particularly liked this excerpt from a letter he wrote in his declining days:
http://utahphillips.blogspot.com/
Isn’t that great? I’m enjoying my life and can think of no good reason not to. Those are words I want to live by. Go to YouTube and watch some of the Strawberry Festival videos. The last one is particularly poignant when he sings “So Long, It’s Been Good To Know You.”
#31 by jdberger - May 1st, 2009 at 10:13
Honestly Becky – I don’t have the attention span for Russian authors. I also find it difficult to follow Dwight Sheldon Adams’s comment. I’ll try my best.
There are always reasons and methods to ensure that a hypothetical won’t work. What’s difficult is answering the question as posed.
For example, Cav’s tongue-in-cheek response:
Alter a couple of the variables. Make it your children in the closet. The guy in front of you has the combination. They have 30 minutes of air. You just got there.
What are you willing to do to get them out?
Dwight Sheldon Adams’s response might be to hunt around for a locksmith, or maybe there is a lumberjack in the neighborhood, or a magician, etc.
It still avoids answering the question.
Hypotheticals are ridiculous when you fear your own answers.
Dwight Sheldon Adams was kind enough to post his own definition of torture. It’s not necessarily the legal definition and it’s not clear how this would apply against anyone accused of torture in a court of law. I realize that I’m dissembling a bit – but that’s exactly what any attorney for the defense will do. It’s one of the hurdles to a successful prosecution.
Dwight Sheldon Adams is mistaken when he assumes that my post of poll results is an attempt to justify torture. In fact, like in the other thread where I posted the same results, I was attempting to parody them. I understand how he might have missed this if he wasn’t following the other thread.
However, it’s not fallacious to break down the results of this particular poll into torture or not. The term asked in the poll was “torture”. It was not defined for the interviewee. “Torture” is an explosive and toxic term. It’s intentionally jarring. When applying it in the case of asking a perceived “bad guy” questions, the context is not like “going to the dentist” (unless you are Dustin Hoffman).
Dwight Sheldon Adams finally requests that I quantify terms. I can’t. Time place and circumstance are important.
One 15 year old with the combination against 1 child in the closet in the above scenario? Yes. I could take a life to save one, just as I could (would be willing) to use deadly force to stop a murder.
You see, the 15 year old in the above scenario by NOT giving up the combination to the closet, is committing murder. His demographic doesn’t enter the equation.
I’m sure I’ve missed something – but I hope that this response is adequate.
#32 by Richard Warnick - May 1st, 2009 at 10:51
Larry–
I hate to be the one to tell you, but the handcuffed-to-the-ceiling torture was standard practice at Bagram, Afghanistan (maybe it still is, we don’t know).
The documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side” tells the story of an innocent Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, who was chained up and beaten to death at Bagram.
#33 by jdberger - May 1st, 2009 at 11:20
I remember that.
Richard, your link does not support your allegation that it was “standard practice”. It may have been, but your link does not support it.
#34 by jdberger - May 1st, 2009 at 11:25
Interesting that the longest sentence was 2 months and a DD. That seems a bit light. The article does note that others have been charged but not tried, though. I can only assume that they are being tried separately due to the heightened gravity of the accusations.
#35 by Richard Warnick - May 1st, 2009 at 12:01
jd–
Even though the Bagram facility is so secret that there are still no published photos of it, the amount of information that has leaked out by now is enough to surmise that ceiling hooks were/are standard practice there.
From Army investigation records obtained by the ACLU in 2005:
#36 by Larry Bergan - May 1st, 2009 at 13:46
I’m going to see if the library has a copy of “Taxi To The Dark Side.” I’m not angry enough yet.