Torture: this is just sad

Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:11am


I hate the fact that my country's leaders panicked after 9/11 and embraced torture. It saddens me to watch this.

I can still remember when it was the bad guys who tortured people in the movies. Here's the test I think is useful for judging abuse: What would I think of this being used against captured U.S. military personnel? Or kidnapped reporters?

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Is there a bit of honor rising?

by Bill Keller on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:52am

"the damage to the country's image caused by the use of waterboarding and similar techniques exceeded any potential benefit, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said." WaPo 22 April 2009

'What to do about Johnie...'

by Walking Wounded on Sat, 04/25/2009 - 3:39pm

The prisoner abuse trend was there for anyone to see in 2001-2. Review the tape of 'American Taliban' John Lind being field-screened at Mazar i Sharif. The subsequent uprising (moments later) was by prisoners who had figured out they were being sorted for abuse-interrogation or execution. It was put down when Dostum's troops flooded the dungeons, killing uncounted trapped POW's from the deposed gov't, captives that we (and Dostum) were supposed to protect, interrogate, and eventually indict or hold for repatriatriation. Not evaluate for torture, death or ransom.

Baghram, where warlords like Dostum have no say, is the place where we're afraid to look at ourselves today; far more so than the disastrous 'condition setting' at Abu Ghraib. Todays war in Pashtunistan is delivering the fruit of Mazar and our past OEF detention policies.

Does anyone remember the rear-guard action waged by Cheney's lawyers, to refuse an inventory requirement of classified materials in his big safe? That was the plot-line where he argued (into his last week in office) that the VP's senate duties made his office immune to rules for WH handling of classified materials. What was it they didn't want inventoried?

Mr. Ricks, Interesting clip

by robf7 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 2:44pm

Mr. Ricks,
Interesting clip that was posted on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/playboy-journo-bets-he-ca_n_189280.html. It's worth the 5 minutes.

Bill Keller, "Admiral Blair’s

by datroy on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 5:30pm

Bill Keller,

"Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”"

From yesterdays NY Times

Yes, I read and noted that in

by Bill Keller on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 9:37pm

Yes, I read and noted that in the "Talking to Yoo" previously. The above appeared to me that Denny was getting some of the old honor back.

But even as late as this week we receive reports from the UK of "severe threats" turning out to be hysterical reactions from people who professionally are incompetent in intelligence and maybe be personally without intelligence. I suspect that we possess the same syndrome here.

Our Central, National, Counter-terrorism and Defense Intelligence services may still know no more about the state of all threats than the SEC knew of Madoff or Stanford.

Torture against anyone in their grips then becomes the cover for coward's ignorance and incompetence. Our enemies do not miss this indicator of defeat.

Unfortunately to those among us who wish otherwise, it can not be ignored. It is imperative for our posterity and the preservation of the Constitution that we not let this go unexposed and unrelieved.

Go to visit the Stockdale memorial behind Luce Hall at the Naval Academy and ask any Mid who walks by how that man's heroism might compare with the current crop of gulag managers' contributions.

Why do we call them "detainees" when they are our prisoners?

by Anne Sumers MD on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 10:03am

Hey Tom,
Why do we use the word "detainee" (which sounds so refined: "Sorry I was late for the opening of the art show, I was detained by traffic") instead of the real situation:
"prisoner". Aren't we being co-opted by American propoganda to call them detainees?

(BTW: I am watching West Point with binoculars and haven't seen you hung in effigy (yet).

Why do we use the word

by J Thomas on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:09pm

Why do we use the word "detainee" (which sounds so refined: "Sorry I was late for the opening of the art show, I was detained by traffic") instead of the real situation:
"prisoner".

When the US government keeps prisoners there's an expectation that it's for some fairly long period of time, and that there's something official about it. A trial, a conviction, a sentence. Or prisoners of war who get certain official rights.

But being a detainee is pretty much unofficial. You can be detained for an hour or a day or thirty years. No trial, no sentence, not necessarily any records kept to say you were there. No particular rights.

It's a different kind of thing and the connotations are not necessarily any more pleasant.