Torture Memos: 'What Is Done in the Dark'

If the release of the interrogation documents is a "sop for the liberals or a distraction," does either justify Obama's release of the memos or the promised release of the photos? I would submit that both provide a poor excuse for Obama's action, which, as you recall, he flip-flopped on. What is the morally high road in this case? The Bush administration believed that waterboarding would (and apparently did) gain vital information toward preventing further attacks on Americans. The unknowns surrounding 9/11 were frightening and demanded extraordinary intelligence measures. Obviously, none of those waterboarded are dead in contrast to those who were in the Twin Towers or those who were victims on foreign soil, such as Daniel Pearl. As you quoted, George Bush and his administration were doing their best to serve the "cause of justice" by trying to discover information that would save not only the lives of Americans but also those living in other countries. We can trumpet America's morality and hold ourselves up as a high-minded model to the terrorists. But guess what, they don't care. And when they don't care and continue to behead, to commission suicide bombers, and to plant random bombs, we have an obligation to discover who is behind the despicable plans and to determine where the next strike will be. In short, is America's enemy the former administration or is it those who want to destroy America and other democratic nations? I believe that Obama should have seriously contemplated the latter question before releasing the memos. And he also should have watched a video of Americans jumping from the Twin Towers.

So your argument is that in order to combat terrorism, we need to become like the terrorists.

Since the morality argument has no value to you, it would seem that other arguments should suffice--torture is ineffective and leads to poor intelligence that in turn wastes valuable time and resources. If torture is so effective, why is Bin Laden still at large? Torture endangers our service men and women because it inflames anti-American sentiment and is a fabulous tool for recruitment by anti-American groups. Does any of that have any concern for you?

Frankly, I don't care that the terrorists don't value our morality. I do care that we sacrificed our values to fight them. Our values are what this nation was founded on, and it does not matter whether other people value them or not. Our values should not ever depend on whether or not our enemies care about them. If we lose our moral soul, we are the losers and the terrorists the winners.

Since we're discussing morality, let's consider the validity of our current moral values on two fronts that spark debate: (1) torture, and (2) birth control and abortion. Is waterboarding a person to obtain information relevant to saving lives less moral than the prevention of life or the killing of a fetus?

I think we'd probably agree, Squeaky, that no political party has a lock on morality. All political parties appeal to trends versus any permanent philosophy.

The irony of this is, torture is far worse than personal indiscretions in the oval office, and one president was impeached for the latter, while another gets a free pass on the former.

To what ends? How about the simple ends of being honest? Does it not matter to you that our government violated the very human rights this nation was founded upon? The government represents our nation to the world. Do you want our nation to be seen as a nation that tortures--especially when we have routinely worked to hold other nations to higher standards regarding human rights issues?

Right now, there is a young Minnesota woman being held in Iran--convicted of espionage. At one time we owned the higher ground with regards to our justice system and foreign detainees. What happened to that higher ground after Gitmo and Abu Graib? How can we expect Iran to live up to our standards on human rights when we haven't done so?

So your argument is that in order to combat terrorism, we need to become like the terrorists.

Since the morality argument has no value to you, it would seem that other arguments should suffice--torture is ineffective and leads to poor intelligence that in turn wastes valuable time and resources. If torture is so effective, why is Bin Laden still at large? Torture endangers our service men and women because it inflames anti-American sentiment and is a fabulous tool for recruitment by anti-American groups. Does any of that have any concern for you?

Frankly, I don't care that the terrorists don't value our morality. I do care that we sacrificed our values to fight them. Our values are what this nation was founded on, and it does not matter whether other people value them or not. Our values should not ever depend on whether or not our enemies care about them. If we lose our moral soul, we are the losers and the terrorists the winners.

There is no proof torture gathered any information that could not have been gained otherwise. In fact, based on the catch-22 logic of the Bush administration, telling us if anything had been learned would compromise our security, so they only way we can be safe is if we don't know. In fact, many trained interrogators have argued that torture is the worst method for gaining useful intelligence. The consensus from those who have spoken out is that torture is a great way to get people to speak, however it is of very limited use in getting them to speak the truth.

Second, it isn't obvious that "none of those waterboarded are dead." In fact there is already evidence that some who were detained did die from the interrogations. The US military has admitted to at least 6 cases of death from abuse of detainees in military prisons. Leaked memos on previous occasions have indicated there may be many more cases. There are also a growing number of accounts related to erroneous rendition of innocent civilians by US forces to foreign sites where they were tortured. In some of these cases people were held without notification or legal representation for months while they endured interrogation techniques that went beyond anything US representatives would perform themselves.

Of course none of the above addresses the legal quandary facing this country because we can no longer prosecute those we have tortured or allowed to be tortured. Now we must deal with the future of prisoners that we can neither prosecute nor release. Maybe we should just shoot them?

The question for you and me and every other American is whether we believe our government should be allowed, under any circumstances, to do these kind of things to US citizens? Would we accept, in the interests of our security, the violation of every right we are guaranteed by the Constitution? In other words, how much freedom should we sacrifice in order to protect our freedom?

The answer that we must sacrifice everything for a sense of safety is the sure road to authoritarianism. What's more, it defies all logic that there is any relationship to JUSTICE in our expectation others should have to give up their rights for our sense of security. If we won't accept such a violation of Americans, then we can't condone it towards anyone else.

Finally, the nature of our enemies should have nothing to do with our response. Are we ourselves, with all the American ideals that go along with that ? Or are we them, willing to do anything for our supposed cause? Maybe it isn't about holding ourselves up as better than everyone else in the world, but it really shouldn't matter whether anyone else "cares" about what we believe. If we believe in things like "all men [people] are created equal" then we must live it. If we don't live it, then we make it a lie. If that fundamental tenant of is a lie, then what are we fighting for?

In the end, this isn't about high-minded morality. It is about the heart of our nation. If we can't live up to the expectations we have for ourselves then we can't have any expectations for anyone else.

Within 100 days, the current administration has fanned the flames of populist hysteria twice. First came Obama's angry rhetoric over the AIG bonuses; however, that anger was quickly muted when it was determined that Obama's administration was responsible for the loophole permitting the bonuses.

Next, Obama denounced the Bush administration's terrorist interrogations while simultaneously calling for "reflection, not retribution" and vowing to "move forward." But this discrediting of the Bush administration became a media and public sensation hyped further by MoveOn.org and the ACLU. Obama then retracted the rhetoric of no "retribution" and threw the interrogation issue into the arena of the Attorney General's office. (Interesting that Eric Holder, the current AG, stated in 2002 that terrorists are not "entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention" and insisted there was a need "to find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.") Meanwhile, Dennis Blair, the current national intelligence director, issued an internal memo in which he stated that "high value information came from the interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding" of al Qaeda. This statement was deleted from Blair's memo when it was released to the press.

The Obama administration has the dubious distinction of becoming the first in the nation's history to threaten legal action against its predecessor. Never mind that other U. S. administrations had major human rights transgressions that were never submitted to legal proceedings. Under the Lincoln administration, habeas corpus was suspended and thousands of Americans were held without charges. Under Wilson, war critics were jailed and vigilantes were encouraged under the banner of the American Protective League. Under Roosevelt, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps. Under Truman, millions of Japanese were killed and maimed by the atomic bomb. And, ironically, under Obama, drones are targeting suspected terrorist and their families in Pakistan. Have the latter been read their Miranda rights?

But let's return to the nefarious Bush administration. So what information was gained by the interrogation techniques? According to press accounts, the following were averted or enabled:
1. A plot to use East Asian operatives to crash an airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles
2. The discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member group that was to execute the "Second Wave"
3. The capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, who supervised the 2002 Bali bombings
4. The identity and conviction of Iyman Faris for plotting the severing of Brooklyn Bridge's cables
5. The identity and capture of USS Cole bomber Rahim al-Nashiri
6. The identity and capture of 9/11 conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh
7. The identity and capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and who claimed that he "decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan."

The preceding list could be expanded since the complete memos have not been released by the Obama administration.

Could this information have been obtained by means other than waterboarding? We've been told that more conversant methods were unsuccessful. And I'm inclined to believe that information given the defiant stance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants before a Guantanamo military commission in March 2009: "We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god's cause is a great duty in our religion . . . Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day . . . ."

At least one cited case, the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was accomplished using a $27 million bribe and electronic surveillance rather than harsh interrogation.

It should be noted that in at least one acknowledged instance harsh interrogation apparently supplied the intelligence linking Al Quaeda to Saddam Hussein. That was a lynch-pin in the justification for invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, that intelligence proved to be false and led directly to the deaths of 4,300 US soldiers, the wounding of 32,000 more soldiers, and the confirmed death of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Still, it is difficult to argue against a position that justifies any means by the potential accomplishment. If we have no standards of conduct, then it doesn't really matter whether torture even works. We -- as a nation -- can do what we want until someone can stop us.

However, I believe that is the point of this discussion and the release of those memos. It is to determine whether the United States has a corporate code of conduct for it's citizens and those of the world. If it is determined that such a code does exist, then it is right that the people of this country and the world should expect us to live by it. If there is no such code then we better hope our strength holds, because we will have nothing else.

There is no point in arguing that they forced us to answer their evil with evil. We can go back touting up evils on both sides for decades. But even if it is true, the bottom line is still that we are just like them. And I'm not OK with that.

Maybe it isn't your intent, but it nevertheless is a diversionary tactic. We are not talking about abortion, we're talking about torture. Stay on topic.

I see this tactic used often when someone is losing an argument. "I don't know how to address the points raised, so I'll bring up abortion instead." If you don't want to be seen as losing the argument, then stay on topic.

But it's a double-edge sword, you know. Your moral concerns best not stop at the moment of birth if you wish to be consistent, else you risk being as inconsistent as you accuse others of being.

So should we prosecute all those who supported the Shah, Saddam, etc.? Yes, America's leaders have made mistakes in judgment, but what you neglect to mention is all the good we "greedy" Americans have done--whether saving Europeans from their world wars with our lives or sharing our wealth with underdeveloped countries in terms of money, goods, and know-how. I think the terrorists' perception of us as "greedy" is based on their ideology and their envy.

Within 100 days, the current administration has fanned the flames of populist hysteria twice. First came Obama's angry rhetoric over the AIG bonuses; however, that anger was quickly muted when it was determined that Obama's administration was responsible for the loophole permitting the bonuses.

Next, Obama denounced the Bush administration's terrorist interrogations while simultaneously calling for "reflection, not retribution" and vowing to "move forward." But this discrediting of the Bush administration became a media and public sensation hyped further by MoveOn.org and the ACLU. Obama then retracted the rhetoric of no "retribution" and threw the interrogation issue into the arena of the Attorney General's office. (Interesting that Eric Holder, the current AG, stated in 2002 that terrorists are not "entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention" and insisted there was a need "to find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.") Meanwhile, Dennis Blair, the current national intelligence director, issued an internal memo in which he stated that "high value information came from the interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding" of al Qaeda. This statement was deleted from Blair's memo when it was released to the press.

The Obama administration has the dubious distinction of becoming the first in the nation's history to threaten legal action against its predecessor. Never mind that other U. S. administrations had major human rights transgressions that were never submitted to legal proceedings. Under the Lincoln administration, habeas corpus was suspended and thousands of Americans were held without charges. Under Wilson, war critics were jailed and vigilantes were encouraged under the banner of the American Protective League. Under Roosevelt, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps. Under Truman, millions of Japanese were killed and maimed by the atomic bomb. And, ironically, under Obama, drones are targeting suspected terrorist and their families in Pakistan. Have the latter been read their Miranda rights?

But let's return to the nefarious Bush administration. So what information was gained by the interrogation techniques? According to press accounts, the following were averted or enabled:
1. A plot to use East Asian operatives to crash an airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles
2. The discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member group that was to execute the "Second Wave"
3. The capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, who supervised the 2002 Bali bombings
4. The identity and conviction of Iyman Faris for plotting the severing of Brooklyn Bridge's cables
5. The identity and capture of USS Cole bomber Rahim al-Nashiri
6. The identity and capture of 9/11 conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh
7. The identity and capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and who claimed that he "decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan."

The preceding list could be expanded since the complete memos have not been released by the Obama administration.

Could this information have been obtained by means other than waterboarding? We've been told that more conversant methods were unsuccessful. And I'm inclined to believe that information given the defiant stance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants before a Guantanamo military commission in March 2009: "We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god's cause is a great duty in our religion . . . Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day . . . ."

To them we are indiscriminate murderers who cling to an ideology of greed. The government of the United States has protected and supported many governments that have oppressed the people who we now call terrorists. That short list includes the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and his predecessor, the "presidents" of Egypt and the royalty of Saudi Arabia. Not only have we supplied them with training and weapons that have been used to cling to non-democratic systems of government, but we have help quash legal forms of dissent via the United Nations Security Council and our veto power. Let's not even get into our complicated and not entirely healthy relationship with Israel, where the undeniable right of self-protection has become a justification for quasi police state that endorses killing tens and even hundreds of civilians to achieve the death of one "terrorist."

Most awful about some of the support provided by the United States is that it does not come in the of name self-interest or even self-protection. Some of it comes simply in the name of capitalism. We sell guns to both sides in many conflicts. We sold Saddam the chemicals used to kill his own people. Perhaps terrorists have been taught to emulate our civility.

The philosophy of today's terrorist is that they lack the weapons or support necessary to conventionally overcome governments supplied by the United States and backed by our military might. To them that provides justification for the terrible things they do. I'm not going to defend their philosophy or acts, I will simply observe that our official criticism is hypocritical. We are not simply the wronged victims, we are also the well-compensated oppressors.

In all likelihood there is no rehabilitating terrorist. However, it is clear to many that our tactics have just the opposite effect. Every dollar spent to support a despot, every unfair trade pact, every indiscriminate missile, every ignored atrocity committed by an ally breeds more terrorists.

Our rule of law is no more likely to rid the world of terrorists than sinking to their level. The former is a concept they won't accept and the latter simply confirms we are who they say we are.

Sure the use of extreme measures may protect us for the moment. But it is not certain at all it will lead to ultimate victory or perpetual security. In fact, it seems counter-intuitive that it would. However, it seems extremely logical that answering evil with evil will simply make more evil.

The world is a bad place now. This nation undeniably played a significant role in making it that way. What we do today won't make the badness go away today. But it could play a significant role in what happens in the future.

So should we prosecute all those who supported the Shah, Saddam, etc.? Yes, America's leaders have made mistakes in judgment, but what you neglect to mention is all the good we "greedy" Americans have done--whether saving Europeans from their world wars with our lives or sharing our wealth with underdeveloped countries in terms of money, goods, and know-how. I think the terrorists' perception of us as "greedy" is based on their ideology and their envy.

I absolutely agree with everything in this article. Those people on the top who formulated the plans to torture need to be brought to justice.

Now there is evidence that top officials in the Bush administration prescribed waterboarding and other forms of torture to try and get prisoners to state that there was a connection between Sadaam Husein and Al Qaida -- in order to justify their invasion of Iraq. Especially, the people who formulated this strategy need to be brought to justice. People -- American soldiers as well as Iraqis -- were killed and maimed because of the false pretenses put forth by the officials who sanctioned torture to try and justify their actions.

3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him. 4What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men; 5and light shines in darkness, and darkness could not overpower it.

Light shines in the dark; duh!
Darkness cannot compete with light!
or
Darkness cannot hold a candle to light!

"Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."

To them we are indiscriminate murderers who cling to an ideology of greed. The government of the United States has protected and supported many governments that have oppressed the people who we now call terrorists. That short list includes the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and his predecessor, the "presidents" of Egypt and the royalty of Saudi Arabia. Not only have we supplied them with training and weapons that have been used to cling to non-democratic systems of government, but we have help quash legal forms of dissent via the United Nations Security Council and our veto power. Let's not even get into our complicated and not entirely healthy relationship with Israel, where the undeniable right of self-protection has become a justification for quasi police state that endorses killing tens and even hundreds of civilians to achieve the death of one "terrorist."

Most awful about some of the support provided by the United States is that it does not come in the of name self-interest or even self-protection. Some of it comes simply in the name of capitalism. We sell guns to both sides in many conflicts. We sold Saddam the chemicals used to kill his own people. Perhaps terrorists have been taught to emulate our civility.

The philosophy of today's terrorist is that they lack the weapons or support necessary to conventionally overcome governments supplied by the United States and backed by our military might. To them that provides justification for the terrible things they do. I'm not going to defend their philosophy or acts, I will simply observe that our official criticism is hypocritical. We are not simply the wronged victims, we are also the well-compensated oppressors.

In all likelihood there is no rehabilitating terrorist. However, it is clear to many that our tactics have just the opposite effect. Every dollar spent to support a despot, every unfair trade pact, every indiscriminate missile, every ignored atrocity committed by an ally breeds more terrorists.

Our rule of law is no more likely to rid the world of terrorists than sinking to their level. The former is a concept they won't accept and the latter simply confirms we are who they say we are.

Sure the use of extreme measures may protect us for the moment. But it is not certain at all it will lead to ultimate victory or perpetual security. In fact, it seems counter-intuitive that it would. However, it seems extremely logical that answering evil with evil will simply make more evil.

The world is a bad place now. This nation undeniably played a significant role in making it that way. What we do today won't make the badness go away today. But it could play a significant role in what happens in the future.

We also sold weapons to both the Japanese and the Germans prior to WWII. The black humor surrounding Pearl Harbor was that we sunk our own ships because the Japanese used guns, bombs and gasoline sold them by US corporations with the knowledge and approval of our government.

Aside from that I don't argue that many of this country's enemies have a narrow and twisted world view. That doesn't change what we have done.

Still, arguing ideologies is pointless. This country has one, our enemies have different ones. What makes ours right or better? Our money? Our knowledge? Our guns? Our morality?

You have already discounted the last. We have to sink as low as is necessary to prevail. That simply makes the first three levers to achieve our ends, not something to be valued by any except those who accept our world view.

BTW, Osama Bin Laden doesn't necessarily respect our capitalistic mindset but he both understands and employs it. It is common knowledge that he made a killing on the stock market after 9/11. While I might find that abhorrent, bankers and politicians have proved during the past two years they perceive it as part of doing business.

Finally, yes -- prosecute them all. It isn't a mistake in judgment when you give guns and money to known murderers so you can have your way in the world. It is sowing a whirlwind.

"History shows us that at some point, some way, somehow the truth comes to light."

That's a silly statement. History shows us that as time goes by the truth and facts often get distorted or lost.

9The Word was the real light that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world. 10He was in the world that had come into being through him, and the world did not recognise him. 11He came to his own and his own people did not accept him.

And we who are even called by his name; still do not accept him.

"Everyone in the world knows that Jesus and his teachings were non-violent: except Christians."-Gandhi

Jesus has been accused of being a pacifist, but his nonviolent responses to evil were never passive!

Turning the other cheek when struck is the sublime response to resist violence by disarming the attacker by maintaining the highest ground: self-controlled nonviolence.

There are those who say the torture - or ill-treatment - was necessary to protect the U.S. against further attacks. Let us not forget that the world is a dangerous place. Our military and intelligence forces need appropriate tools to protect us.

That said, I agree the treatment of the detainees does rise to the level of torture. Even if it were good national policy, it would still be wrong in God's eyes. And in the long run, the world will be less secure because we have tortured people - not more.

What those who are advocating prosecution need to consider is that such would amount to a step toward authoritarian government. By criminalizing and prosecuting its predecessor on the basis of a policy disagreement, the Obama administration would be implementing a fundamental change in our nation's governing policies. By authorizing the release of the partial documents, Obama already has jeopardized our national security and has brought the country to the verge of a political crisis. To what purpose? To prove that he is morally upright? To placate the far left of his party? To offer a distraction from the continuing economic downturn? Obama promised to be a "uniter," to move the nation forward. Instead, he appears to want to mine history to the detriment of the future.

This is not a policy disagreement. There are US and international laws, treaties and agreements that prohibit torture in general and some of the specific acts Americans now know were ordered by their government. As many American leaders have noted, among them recent GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, this country would not accept such treatment of it's own people and, thus, should not have participated in such treatment of others. Perhaps most disturbing is that top military officials and top members of the Bush administration sold out low-ranking members of the armed forces who were caught doing exactly as ordered. They blamed things like Abu Ghraib on a few bad apples instead of acknowledging their own responsibility. One can't help but wonder why they thought it so important to lie and stretch the truth unless they were concerned about the consequences of the truth.

The issue here should not be about policy or politics, it should be whether the president of this country is above the laws of this country. In terms of democracy it is critical to answer that question. If the answer is some Americans aren't bound by US laws, then we have a true threat of authoritarian government. However, if the statutes of this country apply to all its citizens equally, then there shouldn't be any option other than to prosecute those who ordered the violations. There may be grounds for leniency towards those who carried out the orders, though that is a very dangerous precedent, but none for those who gave the orders.

We can debate the why of the information release by the Obama administration. Maybe it was a sop for liberals or a distraction from the beleaguered economy. History may tell us whether it was in the best interests of this country. But as to whether it was the "right" thing to do -- right as an absolute concept on the same level as the justice, liberty and Deity to which Geroge W. Bush so frequently pointed to for justification during his eight years -- is there really any question?

"God is not on the side of any nation, yet we know He is on the side of justice. Our finest moments [as a nation] have come when we faithfully served the cause of justice for our own citizens, and for the people of other lands."
George W. Bush, 2004