Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people?

[George Jung]

Today's military fights in a manner in which people are given time off during war.

Can you show me where you have read that are troops are receiving ample time off.  I've been reading how they are pulling more time then recommended.  Many, many of them will suffer some kind of psychological effects, and on top of that there are stop-loss laws preventing them to leave even if their time is up.  If not for stop-loss, I believe a draft would be imminent.  You keep mentioning the draft and war bonds but how are our troops really doing.  Please, educate me because it sounds like you don't want to face the facts.

[BigSky]

Can you show me where you have read that are troops are receiving ample time off.  I've been reading how they are pulling more time then recommended.  Many, many of them will suffer some kind of psychological effects, and on top of that there are stop-loss laws preventing them to leave even if their time is up.  If not for stop-loss, I believe a draft would be imminent.  You keep mentioning the draft and war bonds but how are our troops really doing.  Please, educate me because it sounds like you don't want to face the facts.

Todays military is set up so people rotate in and out of combat.

A question as having "ample time off"  is illogical.  There is no such standard that is used when one is at war because there is no "time outs" when a war is going on.  We are able to rotate troops in and out of battle because we have enough to do so.  Prior wars troops fought until the war was over.  Not so today. 

You are a grown man are you not?  It is up to you to take some responsibility and educate yourself, not to be lazy and try to have others explain it in detail to you like you were a child.

[Bill Peckham]

Thoughts  from a Christian reflecting on Good Friday and the question of torture.
(via http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ Uncle Gump http://www.unclegrumps.com/essay.php?id=137)




   
From the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. (Mt. 27:45)

When the Pentagon needed someone to prosecute a Guantanamo Bay prisoner linked to 9/11, it turned to Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch. A Marine Corps pilot and veteran prosecutor, Col. Couch brought a personal connection to the job: His old Marine buddy, Michael "Rocks" Horrocks, was co-pilot on United 175, the second plane to strike the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

The prisoner in question, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, had already been suspected of terrorist activity. After the attacks, he was fingered by a senior al Qaeda operative for helping assemble the so-called Hamburg cell, which included the hijacker who piloted United 175 into the South Tower. To Col. Couch, Mr. Slahi seemed a likely candidate for the death penalty.

"Of the cases I had seen, he was the one with the most blood on his hands," Col. Couch says.
But, nine months later, in what he calls the toughest decision of his military career, Col. Couch refused to proceed with the Slahi prosecution. The reason: He concluded that Mr. Slahi's incriminating statements - the core of the government's case - had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law.

* * *

In the following weeks, Mr. Slahi said, he was placed in isolation, subjected to extreme temperatures, beaten and sexually humiliated. The detention-board transcript states that at this point, "the recording equipment began to malfunction." It summarizes Mr. Slahi's missing testimony as discussing "how he was tortured while here at GTMO by several individuals."

From the Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2007. (via Andrew Sullivan for link and pictures)

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not take me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and imprisoned and you took no care of me.

They will also reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or naked, sick or imprisoned, and did not help you?"

He will answer, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."(Mt. 25:42-46)



And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice,

"Eli, Eli, Lama Sabacthani?"



"My God, My God, Why have you abandoned me."

[Bill Peckham]

We are a country of 300 million people yet the "fight" in what the administration and its supports describe as a "fight for America's very existence" has been delegated to the 500,000 men and women who volunteered to serve these last four years, them and the burden has been shared by the millions in their circle of support. Does that action logically flow that premise? Is it logical that we would only ask less than 1% of the population to sacrifice to prevent the destruction of the United States.

Either the threat is not what this administration has described or we are risking everything by asking nothing from 99% of the country's population.

It is clear the threat is not as described by Bush/Cheney; it is less than threats faced successfully by more able presidents.

[George Jung]

I don't think anyone wants to debate your point there Bill.

[BigSky]

Someone blindfolded and restrained and  little bit of blood.   So what.

Hell I have seen more blood at the dialysis unit.

What is done at Gitmo doesn't even compare to what terrorists have done.

Better what is done at Gitmo than this.

[George Jung]

What is done at Gitmo doesn't even compare to what terrorists have done.

Yea, that the way to measure ourselves......by what terrorist do.  I think that is totally ridiculous.  Well terrorist do it. That sounds like a six year old.  But Mommy I'm not as bad as "Bradley the bully".  Well you don't look to "Bradley the bully", who was not brought up right, to gage oneself, but rather "Sam the scholar".  What in the hell kind of logic is that, "compared to terrorist"?  Oh man.......

[Bill Peckham]

Thoughts this Easter about the administration's policy (via http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ )

The key distinction is between man and meme. Yes, a great power can always kill and torment enemies, and, yes, there will always be times when that makes sense. Still, when you're dealing with terrorists, it's their memes — their ideas, their attitudes — that are Public Enemy No. 1. Jihadists are hosts for the virus of hatred, and the object of the game is to keep the virus from finding new hosts.

The Internet is fertile ground for memes, and jihadists are good at getting the brand out. One of the few things Osama bin Laden has in common with the Jesus of the Gospels is belief in the power of viral marketing. The ultimate in viral marketing was Jesus' ultimate sacrifice. Deemed a threat to the social order, he was crucified under Roman auspices. But the Romans forgot one thing: If you face a small but growing movement that threatens the imperial order, you shouldn’t attack the men in ways that help the memes.

Mr. Bush says his favorite philosopher is Jesus. One way to show it would be to spend less time repeating the mistake of the Romans and more time heeding the wisdom of Christ,

Bob Wright, in yesterday's NYT

[BigSky]

Yea, that the way to measure ourselves......by what terrorist do.  I think that is totally ridiculous.  Well terrorist do it. That sounds like a six year old.  But Mommy I'm not as bad as "Bradley the bully".  Well you don't look to "Bradley the bully", who was not brought up right, to gage oneself, but rather "Sam the scholar".  What in the hell kind of logic is that, "compared to terrorist"?  Oh man.......

No, to think a terrorist is just going to give up information by being nice and asking him for information is ignorant.

Besides that if you truly want to measure ourselves then compare what is done at Gitmo to the prior history of this country and you will see what is actually going on at Gitmo isn't even close to some of the stuff that has occurred in this country before.


The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things  is utterly disgusting.

[Bill Peckham]

Bigsky edited out the two year old poll results that he initally posted

"on rare occasions" it's always how you ask the question.

How about is torture alright as established government policy down to the platoon level?

"The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things  is utterly disgusting."

This is the weakest strawman yet. How about beating people to death? Or breaking their bones?

[BigSky]

"on rare occasions" it's always how you ask the question.

How about is torture alright as established government policy down to the platoon level?

Sorry but I am not going to tie the hands of those that are putting their life on the line, I leave that decision on what THEY think needs done at that time and give them all the leeway to do it.

[BigSky]

Bigsky edited out the two year old poll results that he initally posted

"on rare occasions" it's always how you ask the question.

How about is torture alright as established government policy down to the platoon level?

"The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things  is utterly disgusting."

This is the weakest strawman yet. How about beating people to death? Or breaking their bones?

Actually the poll results were posted in an earlier post further up and as to the last one I removed them from they were removed before you posted and the age of the poll means nothing, because we do not rely on polls to fight wars.


Our troops do what needs done to get information to save lives.

But by all means Bill, since you want to second guess our troops in letting them do what needs to get done to save lives.   

By all means tell us just what exactly (specifics)  they should do to get information out of these terrorists down in Gitmo. 

[BigSky]

We are a country of 300 million people yet the "fight" in what the administration and its supports describe as a "fight for America's very existence" has been delegated to the 500,000 men and women who volunteered to serve these last four years, them and the burden has been shared by the millions in their circle of support. Does that action logically flow that premise? Is it logical that we would only ask less than 1% of the population to sacrifice to prevent the destruction of the United States.

Either the threat is not what this administration has described or we are risking everything by asking nothing from 99% of the country's population.

It is clear the threat is not as described by Bush/Cheney; it is less than threats faced successfully by more able presidents.

There are roughly 1.4 million members of the active military excluding guard and reserve. 

Wars are fought as the battle lays out and as troops are needed. 

[George Jung]

Can you show me where you have read that are troops are receiving ample time off.  I've been reading how they are pulling more time then recommended.  Many, many of them will suffer some kind of psychological effects, and on top of that there are stop-loss laws preventing them to leave even if their time is up.  If not for stop-loss, I believe a draft would be imminent.  You keep mentioning the draft and war bonds but how are our troops really doing.  Please, educate me because it sounds like you don't want to face the facts.

Todays military is set up so people rotate in and out of combat.

A question as having "ample time off"  is illogical.  There is no such standard that is used when one is at war because there is no "time outs" when a war is going on.  We are able to rotate troops in and out of battle because we have enough to do so.  Prior wars troops fought until the war was over.  Not so today. 

You are a grown man are you not?  It is up to you to take some responsibility and educate yourself, not to be lazy and try to have others explain it in detail to you like you were a child.

Hmmmmmmmmm.........?  No such standard?  Question of having ample time off is "illogical"?

I have a real problem with you telling me to "take responsibility" to........ educate myself?  Even more of a problem with..."not to be lazy" and have others explain it in detail to me like I'm a CHILD.

I take the time to back up my position and points.  Can you say that?

The next time you call me "lazy" or you disrespect me like you have in that post, I'm going to rip you a new ass hole. 


WASHINGTON - For just the second time since the war began, the Army is sending large units back to        Iraq without giving them at least a year at home, defense officials said Monday. The move signaled how stretched the U.S. fighting force has become.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
A combat brigade from New York and a Texas headquarters unit will return to Iraq this summer in order to maintain through August the military buildup        President Bush announced earlier this year. Overall, the        Pentagon announced, 7,000 troops will be going to Iraq in the coming months as part of the effort to keep 20 brigades in the country to help bolster the Baghdad security plan. A brigade is roughly 3,000 soldiers.

The Army will try not to shorten the troops' U.S. time, "but in this case we had to," said a senior Army official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "Obviously right now the Army is stretched," the official said.

The 4th Infantry Division headquarters unit from Fort Hood, Texas, will return to Iraq after a little more than seven months at home — the largest departure to date from the Army's goal of giving units at least a year's rest after every year deployed. The 1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Ft. Drum, N.Y., will go back to Iraq after just 10 1/2 months at home.

The only other major unit to spend less than one year at home was the Georgia-based 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, which returned to Iraq 48 days short of a year and is there now, according to the Army.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman acknowledged that the Texas unit's 81 day shortfall in rest time, "is not insignificant."

"There's only so many division headquarters," he said. "It reflects that this is a military that is in conflict. We're obviously using a significant portion of the combat units of the force. And it's a reflection of the realities that exist right now."

Whitman said the latest deployment orders released Monday would also require the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division Headquarters unit to stay in Iraq for about 46 days longer than its planned year.

Defense officials and military leaders disagreed last week over how long it will take to determine if the latest buildup — which added five brigades to what had been a fairly consistent level of 15 brigades in Iraq — is working.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the military's chief spokesman in Iraq, said commanders won't know until at least autumn when they can begin to bring troop levels back down. A day later Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a congressional committee that he was disturbed to hear that comment, and he said commanders should be able to make the evaluation by summer.

So far two of the five Army brigades planned for the buildup are in Baghdad, and a third is moving in now. All five will be there in June.

The Army's stated goal is to give active-duty soldiers two years at home between overseas combat tours. But that has been largely impossible because the Army does not have enough brigades to meet the demands of simultaneous wars in Iraq and        Afghanistan. The latest buildup increased the demands, but until recently the Army had been able to give units at least a year break.

Military leaders say the 12 months are needed so the units can rest and then become adequately trained and equipped to go back.

Throughout the war, some smaller, more specialized units have had to deploy without 12 months rest. The Pentagon is currently developing a policy that would provide additional pay to units that don't get the year break.

Other deployments announced Monday include:

• The 18th Airborne Corps Headquarters unit, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., will go to Iraq in November

• The 1st Armored Division Headquarters, based in Wiesbaden, Germany, will go in August

In addition to the 7,000 newly announced deployments, Whitman said about 2,000 military police have gotten their orders to go to Iraq. Gates announced last month that commanders requested about 2,200 military police. About 200 were already there and had their tours extended to meet the request, according to the Army.

Also, the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, which is currently in Iraq, will serve a full year there and return home in January 2008 rather than in September as originally planned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_troops

[nextnoel]

No, to think a terrorist is just going to give up information by being nice and asking him for information is ignorant.

Besides that if you truly want to measure ourselves then compare what is done at Gitmo to the prior history of this country and you will see what is actually going on at Gitmo isn't even close to some of the stuff that has occurred in this country before.


The fact that a you think someone should have to die because you find it unacceptable to make a terrorist listen to rap music among other things  is utterly disgusting.

Para. 1:  And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?

Para. 2:  So because we were wrong before, it's OK to be wrong again?  Don't we learn anything on reflection?

Para. 3:  oh, Hell, never mind.

[Bill Peckham]

Para. 1:  And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?

Here is some thoughts right along those lines nextnoel. There are any number of logic disconnects when these "toture-like" policies are thought through but this seems to be a particularly telling disconnect that is all over the current news. (via http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ )


Count me in - but the public doesn't seem to grasp this. It's especially telling since we dismiss the statements of the captive British soldiers as the fruit of coercion even though their treatment was like a bed and breakfast compared to what has taken place at Abu Graib, Camp Cropper, Bagram or Gitmo. Why are we unable to make the same assumptions about other coerced testimony?

One possible answer is simply that as long as the victims of torture are not white or Western, they are not seen as fully human victims of torture - and therefore none of the rules we apply to full human beings count. Since any information from sub-humans is sketchy anyway, why not torture it out of them? It's as legit as anything we're likely to get out of them by conventional techniques. "Treat them like dogs" was General Miller's express instructions at Abu Ghraib. And he saw the prisoners as dogs. In fact, if animal shelter workers in the West treated its dogs as some US forces have treated some detainees, they'd be fired for cruelty.

The scenario changes instantly when the victim of coercion is white or an allied soldier. It's striking, isn't it, that the only cases of torture in Gitmo and elsewhere that have had any traction in the wider culture have been people who do not fit the ethnic profile of Arabs. Jose Padilla is Latino; David Hicks is Australian. When they're tortured, we worry about the reliability of the evidence. But when we torture "information" out of men called al-Qhatani or Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the information we get is allegedly saving "thousands of lives." How do we know this? Because the torturers, i.e. the Bush administration, tell us so. And so the circle of cognitive dissonance tightens until it becomes airtight.

[nextnoel]

Thanks - interesting read.

[BigSky]

Hmmmmmmmmm.........?  No such standard?  Question of having ample time off is "illogical"?

I have a real problem with you telling me to "take responsibility" to........ educate myself?  Even more of a problem with..."not to be lazy" and have others explain it in detail to me like I'm a CHILD.

I take the time to back up my position and points.  Can you say that?

The next time you call me "lazy" or you disrespect me like you have in that post, I'm going to rip you a new ass hole. 

Fact of the matter it is for you to learn how wars are fought and what needs to be done.  There is the ideal way of things being done and then there is what happens in real life.   It seems quite clear, from your comments about the military getting its assed kicked to your calling the troops brainwashed that you either do not know about the military or you have a bias against it.

You back youself up?  If you think so.  You fail to look at the broader aspect to the situation.

Ooooo another threat. 

[BigSky]

Para. 1:  And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?

Para. 2:  So because we were wrong before, it's OK to be wrong again?  Don't we learn anything on reflection?

Para. 3:  oh, Hell, never mind.

1.  First you need to understand how it works.   Do not confuse what is being done with that of the inquisition of past when true torture was used.   It is not taken to a point where people start making wild claims,  they may bolster a bit and claim to have done more than they actually did but that is something that is normal in any type of  interrogation.   When used correctly one doesn't take information at fact value but checks with others to see is the information is actually true or not.  Similar to what cops do when they two or more suspects that are together on a crime.  They split them up and see if information collaborates.

2. It better to error on the side of caution than not abandon it and watch thousands die in another 9/11 style attack.

3. Never mind?  Really, come against the wall on that one did you, you do know such a thing is done and can be considered torture.



You might note these this was done and they fessed up Jose Padilla.  Someone the US had no idea on that he trained with Al-Qaeda or what he was planning to do.



BTW Bill, seems you forgot to answer the question:


By all means tell us just what exactly (specifics)  they should do to get information out of these terrorists down in Gitmo.

[nextnoel]

Para. 1:  And just how smart is it to think that the information a terrorist gives up as a result of torture is reliable?

Para. 2:  So because we were wrong before, it's OK to be wrong again?  Don't we learn anything on reflection?

Para. 3:  oh, Hell, never mind.

1.  First you need to understand how it works.   Do not confuse what is being done with that of the inquisition of past when true torture was used.   It is not taken to a point where people start making wild claims,  they may bolster a bit and claim to have done more than they actually did but that is something that is normal in any type of  interrogation.   When used correctly one doesn't take information at fact value but checks with others to see is the information is actually true or not.  Similar to what cops do when they two or more suspects that are together on a crime.  They split them up and see if information collaborates.

2. It better to error on the side of caution than not abandon it and watch thousands die in another 9/11 style attack.

3. Never mind?  Really, come against the wall on that one did you, you do know such a thing is done and can be considered torture. 

BTW Bill, seems you forgot to answer the question:

By all means tell us just what exactly (specifics)  they should do to get information out of these terrorists down in Gitmo.

I spent over 10 years at the Pentagon as a special systems analyst for the Chief of Naval Operations; the one incontrovertible truth with which I was left is that we regular citizens know very little of what's going on.

1.  I know how it works, and in a perfect world, you would be right.  This is not a perfect world.

2.  My, oh my, so you really think our current actions are preventing another 9/11 type attack? 

3.  Yes, I "came against the wall", but not in the way you interpreted it.  I know such things are done, and I know they can be considered torture.  My "Oh, Hell, never mind" was an indication of how futile I felt answering you would be. 

And now that I have confirmation, my  final response is,

Oh, Hell, never mind!

[BigSky]

2.  My, oh my, so you really think our current actions are preventing another 9/11 type attack? 

Tell you what,  if after all these years that the military has been operating Gitmo and doing this and if it was not working at all are some suggest do you really think they would continue to do this? 


Our military does what it thinks needs done and its not as bad as anti-US groups claim.


"I had a good time at Guantanamo"--Mohammed Agha


You might note he was a Afghan boy who was picked up with anti coalition forces.  He was conscripted into service and picked up by Afghan forces and eventually sent to Gitmo.    He was held for 14-months by US authorities as a terrorist suspect in Gitmo and that  prompted an outcry from human rights groups.  The funny thing is he said he enjoyed his time in the camp, this was no doubt  much to the chagrin of human rights groups.

He said he was treated very well and particularly enjoyed learning to speak English.  Boy you can bet that burns those human rights groups who try to portray Gitmo as some ungodly place.

It was said he was  taught English, Pashto, and basic math by Afghan-American teachers. All dietary and religious preferences were said to be followed.

"For two or three days I was confused," but later the Americans were so nice with me. They were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Added the boy's father: "My son got an education in America."

[Bill Peckham]

2.  My, oh my, so you really think our current actions are preventing another 9/11 type attack? 

Tell you what,  if after all these years that the military has been operating Gitmo and doing this and if it was not working at all are some suggest do you really think they would continue to do this? 

Our military does what it thinks needs done and its not as bad as anti-US groups claim.

"I had a good time at Guantanamo"--Mohammed Agha

You might note he was a Afghan boy who was picked up with anti coalition forces.  He was conscripted into service and picked up by Afghan forces and eventually sent to Gitmo.    He was held for 14-months by US authorities as a terrorist suspect in Gitmo and that  prompted an outcry from human rights groups.  The funny thing is he said he enjoyed his time in the camp, this was no doubt  much to the chagrin of human rights groups.

He said he was treated very well and particularly enjoyed learning to speak English.  Boy you can bet that burns those human rights groups who try to portray Gitmo as some ungodly place.

It was said he was  taught English, Pashto, and basic math by Afghan-American teachers. All dietary and religious preferences were said to be followed.

"For two or three days I was confused," but later the Americans were so nice with me. They were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Added the boy's father: "My son got an education in America."

Doesn't your story prove my point? In the same way the way that we treated captures during previous wars, whether in Korea or Vietnam, our restraint, our selfrestraint, made subsequent diplomacy easier and in general enhanced America's reputation. You are not suggesting that the boy's treatment is typical are you?

You asked what I would do were I in charge of US policy - I guess you're asking me to speculate what my actions would be after taking office in January 2009. First off I would purge the DoJ of all the lackeys hired under Bush since 2002 - the Regent University Bushies that have signed off on these disgraceful policies. Foremost I would recind the Bush signing statements and return to the rule of law. The Military Law of 2001 had served this country well for over 200 years and I would immediately enforce the conventions it outlines in regard to POWs or detainees or whatever it is you wish to call them but that is not quite what you asked.

You asked about the folks at GitMo. I'd close GitMo for the purpose of holding prisoners. I would subject captures to the rule of law and I would hold them to answer before US courts and the families impacted on 9/11. The unfortunate truth is that any hope of calling these people to answer for their crimes has been forsaken by the Bush/Cheney policies but my goal would be to have them answer for their crimes.

In general I would treat the crime of terrorism - which is a actual crime under US criminal code - just as we treat all crimes. As far as "getting" information from an uncooperative captive there is a well documented system for this that sometimes works, there are books about it and the FBI is somewhat proficient at the techniques. In my view al qaeda has far more in common with the costa nostra than the viet cong and we should treat them as such.

I thought the Bob Wright made a very good point in his NYT oped Saturday - terrorism is like a virus. You have to keep it from spreading, the people already infected may well be lost but the number one priority should be to keep the virus from spreading. Our current operations at GitMo help spread the virus and for that reason GitMo is hurting us. I doubt there is information to be had of great significance - our enemy is highly compartmentalized.

You wrote in your last post "if after all these years that the military has been operating Gitmo and doing this and if it was not working at all are some suggest do you really think they would continue to do this?" I think the military does what the White House tells them to do. There have been several first hand reports from the soldiers who are at the pointy end of the spear clearly stating that their orders are counter-productive and that no helpful information has been gathered by these enhanced interrogation techniques but it does not matter, it only matters what the Bushies think and they don't credit what anyone says ... well other than Jack Bauer.

[BigSky]

Doesn't your story prove my point? In the same way the way that we treated captures during previous wars, whether in Korea or Vietnam, made subsequent diplomacy easier and in general enhanced America's reputation. You are not suggesting that the boy's treatment was typical are you?

No it proves the system works and that it is not as bad at Gitmo as you are making it out to be.

You asked what I would do were I in charge of US policy

Actually no I never Bill.  The question was quite clear.  Nice dodge though.

You asked about the folks at GitMo. I'd close GitMo for the purpose of holding prisoners. I would subject captures to the rule of law and I would hold them to answer before US courts and the families impacted on 9/11. The unfortunate truth is that any hope of calling these people to answer for their crimes has been forsaken by the Bush/Cheney policies but my goal would be to have them answer for their crimes.

So we should not follow the part of the GC were we can hold people until hostilities have ended?

In general I would treat the crime of terrorism - which is a actual crime under US criminal code - just as we treat all crimes. As far as "getting" information from an uncooperative captive there is a well documented system for this that sometimes works, there are books about it and the FBI is somewhat proficient at the techniques. In my view al qaeda has far more in common with the costa nostra than the viet cong and we should treat them as such.

You might note that following the DOJ way of fighting terrorism as done during the Clinton era has been considered a failure for all intents and purposes.

I thought the Bob Wright made a very good point in his NYT oped Saturday - terrorism is like a virus. You have to keep it from spreading, the people already infected may well be lost but the number one priority should be to keep the virus from spreading. Our current operations at GitMo help spread the virus and for that reason GitMo is hurting us. I doubt there is information to be had of great significance - our enemy is highly compartmentalized.

Sorry Bill, but the NYT holds no weight or authority in my view.  If anything it should be shut down and kept from publishing for its blatant abuses of free speech.   What it has done is tantamount to a gang member illegally using a gun and committing a drive by.  It is very clear the Times is worthless from its cover up of Blair, to its recent lies about the baby in the raid on illegals at the New Bedford factory to the most recent article about the allegations of  treatment of a female soldier in Iraq, which my understanding was the NYT found out the story was actually false but instead ran the fabricated story anyway.

[Bill Peckham]

Oh, Hell, never mind!

[Bill Peckham]

Wow this is a powerful post from Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html#more

Image of document outlining German Verschärfte Vernehmung techniques circa 1937 : http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/translationofmuellermemo.jpg

"The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding" was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The "cold bath" technique - the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo - was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed University,

pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.

In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether "enhanced interrogation" using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration...

Image of dead Iraqi, post US detention: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/agcorpse3.jpg

Here's a document < http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm > from Norway's 1948 war-crimes trials detailing the prosecution of Nazis convicted of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the Second World War. Money quote from the cases of three Germans convicted of war crimes for "enhanced interrogation":
   

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body. Most of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the injuries received during those interrogations.

    Between 1942 and 1945, Schubert gave 14 Norwegian prisoners "verschärfte Vernehmung," using various instruments of torture and hitting them in the face and over the body. Many of the prisoners suffered for a considerable time from the effects of injuries they received.

    On 1st February, 1945, Clemens shot a second Norwegian prisoner from a distance of 1.5 metres while he was trying to escape. Between 1943 and 1945, Clemens employed the method of " verschäfte Vernehmung " on 23 Norwegian prisoners. He used various instruments of torture and cold baths. Some of the prisoners continued for a considerable time to suffer from injuries received at his hands.

Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases. Notice the classic, universal and simple criterion used to define torture in 1948 (Sullivan's italics):

In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.

The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely. But the argument, deployed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Nazis before them, didn't wash with the court. Money quote:

    As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.

    The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.

So using "enhanced interrogation techniques" against insurgent prisoners out of uniform was punishable by death. Here's the Nazi defense argument:

(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.

This is the Yoo position. It's what Glenn Reynolds calls the "sensible" position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: "No Blood, No Foul." Now take the issue of "stress positions", photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee. Here's a good description of how stress positions operate:

The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.

This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree. They describe:

Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.

Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Dachau < http://mywebpage.netscape.com/corpungermany/jur5.htm >. (Google translation here , http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/corpungermany/jur5.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522verschaerfte%2BVernehmung%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Drqi >)

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death."

Me: Great reporting. I wonder how many members of the current administration will not travel abroad for the rest of their lives?