Should torture be Top Secret?

[Nova Land]

I've color-coded the following exchange between Huntster and me -- Huntster in red, me in blue -- to make it a little clearer who is saying what when. I've also added underlining to the part of my post which Huntster had italicized to make it stand out more, since the italics aren't as visible in this extended quote. I think this exchange provides a very good illustration of how easy it is for people to misunderstand each other in discussions like this, even when each thinks they have spoken plainly and clearly.

You state that torture is "offical US government policy."

I do? I'm not sure what you read in my posts that gives you that impression, but it's not something I intended. Please quote the passage where you think I say that, so I can see what it is I said that gave you that impression.

Here:

If this were purely a hypothetical situation, then trying to draw a distinction between torture which is offical US government policy and torture which is the individual initiative of people the government put in charge of the prisoners might be an interesting intellectual exercise...

I read it again, then again. I'm still under the impression that you believe torture is official U.S. policy. Explain how I'm wrong, please.

Thank you for posting to clarify where you got the impression that I had said torture is "official US government policy". To me, the intention of that passage is plain, so I would not have guessed it was the one you had misinterpreted.

Your italicization indicates how differently you are reading the sentence from how I intended it to be read. You appear to be seeing those words in isolation; I'm seeing them as part of a larger sentence.

I was responding to a post by you in which you drew a distinction between torture (if it were done as part of official US policy) and torture (if it were done by rogue individuals).

I believe that mistreatment of prisoners in US custody needs to be stopped regardless of who is doing it and why. Therefore there is no need for me to speculate in this thread on whether torture is or is not official US government policy, and I have not done so. I'll reserve judgment on that until the matter has been adequately investigated and fully aired.

The point of the sentence I wrote in response to the distinction you drew between torture and torture is that, in judging whether the government should be allowed to classify details of prisoner mistreatment as Top Secret, I don't care whether incidents of mistreatment were the result people acting at the behest of the US government (i.e. torture which is US government policy) or were the results of rogue individuals acting on their own, with neither the knowledge nor approval of the US government (i.e. torture which is not official US government policy). What I care about, in relation to this policy of secrecy, is that if such incidents occur it is important that they be brought to light.

You were saying it was important to distinguish between torture which is the result of official US policy and torture which isn't. I was saying that torture is torture, and I don't care whether it is official policy or not. I do not want prisoners in US custody to be mistreated regardless of whether it is due to malevolence (if it were official US policy) or incompetence (if it were the result of the US government not having put in place adequate safeguards to prevent people torturing prisoners on their own initiative).

A policy which prevents prisoners from talking about such mistreatment or which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on such mistreatment is a Torturer Protection Act. Such a policy is wrong. And it is wrong whether the US government has an official policy of torture or not.

That is what I have been saying consistently throughout this thread. If you read the sentence in question again, reading it as a whole rather than focusing on those 6 words you italicized, I hope my meaning will be clearer to you.

 

[Nova Land]

All crime, whether martial or civilian, are not discovered or reported or successfully prosecuted. That's just a fact of life.

Yes, it is quite true that not all crimes are brought to light. I'm glad to see we are both realists about that.

I hope we are also in agreement that when obstacles are put in the way of discovering crimes, fewer of them are brought to light and prosecuted; and that when barriers are removed, more of them are brought to light and prosecuted.

That's precisely why a policy which attempts to classify details about the treatment of prisoners in US custody as Top Secret -- which would put obstacles in the way of these crimes being discovered and prosecuted -- is a Torturer Protection Act. The fact that some criminals will go undetected does not mean we should put in place policies that will help more of them go undetected.

... [T]here [were] multiple layers of ass-covering exercises going on while the highest levels of government were trying to sift for the truth...

Again, I agree!

Indeed, I strongly suspect the ass-covering exercises were of considerably greater importance to those at the highest levels than the effort to sift out the truth. That is very likely what is happening with this proposed new classification policy. If details of incidents in which prisoners are beaten to death -- such as were cited earlier in this thread, and which you acknowledge had happened -- can be kept from coming to light in the first place, then the asses in charge aren't exposed in the first place and there is less need for covering them later.

That's why the Bush administration's proposed policy is a bad idea. When problems like this occur, the US should be more concerned with bringing the problems to light and making sure they don't happen again -- not in covering asses by making it harder for such problems to come to light in the future.

 

[Nova Land]

So, oh vile internet elitist, you would demand that internet forum posters know how to craft a topic sentence, do so, and perhaps flesh out an introductory paragraph to raise a point of interest, rather than merely vomit forth careless prose or engage in pointless, minimalist link-and-run tactics?

Not demand, simply request. People are free to post in whatever style feels most comfortable to them. My hope is simply that people who share skeptical ideals would feel more comfortable expressing their claims and arguments clearly -- even though it takes longer and runs the risk of running over-long, as my posts often do. But it is purely voluntary.

Thank you for your support on this. I look forward to discussing with you via PM the ways in which we will treat those who do not voluntarily comply with this request once we have overthrown the old regime here and established the new order.

(Oh, and don't worry about expressing yourself freely. Any discussion of this is Top Secret.)

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Unfortunately, I'm forced to pay very close attention to "national politics." I'm also forced to pay very close attention to policy.

And most sadly, I've paid attention to the sorry propaganda repeated on this forum regarding torture policy of the United States military.

And bush's main concern was always keeping it so that the CIA and not the military could torture. So in all of that you have not seen any of the administrations arguements about their rights to torture people?

You're quite late and quite wrong. This whole torture bandwagon began with Abu Graib (an Army event), and it has never slowed down since. Like I wrote, it became a tool of election year propaganda.

Quote:
I now ask again: please provide some documentation outlining the policy of the United States military regarding the definition of torture, as well as documentation of any proposed changes. (Hint: I've already done so on this forum; you don't even need to search the entire internet, although you're free to do so.)

So only the military should be excluded from torture it does not matter if the CIA or private contracters do the torture then as it is not US policy?

I just got done responding to you with more than one U.S. law which clearly state that U.S. policy on torture is based on the U.S. Constitution (which, I believe, is inappropriately applied to non-U.S. guerrilla combatants), and (as you are so clearly illustrating) that won't even shut the domestic whiners up.

In other words, Perry Mason, Syrian terrorists caught engaging in terrorist acts in Iraq by U.S. military personnel have the same legal protections that you have in DumbF***, USA, from torture.

Not happy yet?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's all legally reportable to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It isn't held exclusively by the administration. It's just not available to the lawyers and media.

How exactly would a prisoner convey information to congress? Pass a note via the prison guard? Send a letter via USPS? And what mechanism would compel congress to look at the information?How exactly would a prisoner convey information to congress? Pass a note via the prison guard? Send a letter via USPS? And what mechanism would compel congress to look at the information?

The same way Abu Graib came to light:

Beginning in 2003, numerous accounts of abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) occurred. The acts were committed by personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company, CIA officers, and contractors involved in the occupation of Iraq such as CACI International.

An internal investigation by the United States Army commenced in January 2004, and reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention in April 2004, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 28) and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.....

Whistleblowers.

 

[Huntster]

....I believe that mistreatment of prisoners in US custody needs to be stopped regardless of who is doing it and why....

I agree.

Therefore there is no need for me to speculate in this thread on whether torture is or is not official US government policy, and I have not done so.

That's unfortunate. Because if torture is official U.S. policy (as is outright alleged or implied by more than one poster on this thread), than there is no rogue torture. It's policy.

If, however, torture is officially illegal, then we know we need to control rogue elements.

It's kinda like knowing whether you're moose hunting or caribou hunting before you leave the house.

The point of the sentence I wrote in response to the distinction you drew between torture and torture is that, in judging whether the government should be allowed to classify details of prisoner mistreatment as Top Secret, I don't care whether incidents of mistreatment were the result people acting at the behest of the US government (i.e. torture which is US government policy) or were the results of rogue individuals acting on their own, with neither the knowledge nor approval of the US government (i.e. torture which is not official US government policy). What I care about, in relation to this policy of secrecy, is that if such incidents occur it is important that they be brought to light.

If Congress is being asked to codify the classification of prisoner treatment, from past experience, I'd suspect that if Congress considers doing so, they will want oversight. That is common with intelligence legislation. The Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress have closed door oversight, and that includes fact finding abilities.

That is why I asked for a link to any information regarding bills or government action regarding your claim of classification of prisoner treatment. I want to know the truth, not what the National Enquirer says is the truth.

A policy which prevents prisoners from talking about such mistreatment or which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on such mistreatment is a Torturer Protection Act. Such a policy is wrong. And it is wrong whether the US government has an official policy of torture or not.

That is your opinion. I disagree. We'll see who Congress (now split in gridlock partisan fashion) agrees with.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't.

Show me where the U.S. Government does.

I add:

I am concerned with intelligence failures; I'm deeply concerned, and I'm seeing things lately which are leading me to believe the problem is much worse than I thought just a couple of years ago.

I am concerned by that as well, we seem to lack on the ground information, and I know that we had to switch from the Soviets to the rest of the world. Given the idea that perhaps our current enemies don't use large communications networks that might be challenging.

I am concerned though by the reports that certain agencies have used 'physical pressure' to make people talk. And the documented cases of someone being sent to a foriegn country to possibly be tortured (like a canadian citizen).

I think the fact that the policy debate is foucsed on such things as "if they know our tactics to extract information they will train to withstand it" and "Kahlid Muhammed gave us valuable information" and "this is asymetrical warfare when GTMO prisoners commit suicide" keeps the focus on the wrong area, blaming on both sides rather than recruiting more people to speak arabic, persian, and all the languages we need to translate.

I recently also heard a news story that perhaps Condi Rice was a poor leader when it came to intelligence, but I haven't a clue on that one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The point of the sentence I wrote in response to the distinction you drew between torture and torture is that, in judging whether the government should be allowed to classify details of prisoner mistreatment as Top Secret, I don't care whether incidents of mistreatment were the result people acting at the behest of the US government (i.e. torture which is US government policy) or were the results of rogue individuals acting on their own, with neither the knowledge nor approval of the US government (i.e. torture which is not official US government policy). What I care about, in relation to this policy of secrecy, is that if such incidents occur it is important that they be brought to light.

If it is official policy and legal how will you investigate it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, it is quite true that not all crimes are brought to light. I'm glad to see we are both realists about that.

Is it a crime though? Why did the administration spend alot of effort keeping military laws from applying to civilian interogators? They are often outside the scope of any law, as they are out of any jurisdiction. So how can they commit a crime?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're quite late and quite wrong. This whole torture bandwagon began with Abu Graib (an Army event), and it has never slowed down since. Like I wrote, it became a tool of election year propaganda.

That is crap, the bush administration has for years been putting out docutments supporting things that would normaly be concidered torture, Abu Graib is just the problem of their policies mixing. The problem there is that the army people where told to soften up people, if they had just left the torture to the professionals, CIA and independant contracters, then no laws would have been broken.

You keep putting the focus on the army, but it was always civilian inteligence agency that was the focus of the administrations attempts to legalize torture. Or claiming that they already have the right to have people tortured(remember that memo that showed the attorny generals legal opinion when he was a white house lawyer?)

I just got done responding to you with more than one U.S. law which clearly state that U.S. policy on torture is based on the U.S. Constitution (which, I believe, is inappropriately applied to non-U.S. guerrilla combatants), and (as you are so clearly illustrating) that won't even shut the domestic whiners up.

In other words, Perry Mason, Syrian terrorists caught engaging in terrorist acts in Iraq by U.S. military personnel have the same legal protections that you have in DumbF***, USA, from torture.

Not happy yet?

And does it extend to the CIA and private contracters? How do they define torture or is that left up the the president?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The same way Abu Graib came to light:

Ah being illegaly exposed on the news, as there where internal reports for a very long time before that

Whistleblowers.

Who not get locked up in this reading for outing top secret information.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree.



That's unfortunate. Because if torture is official U.S. policy (as is outright alleged or implied by more than one poster on this thread), than there is no rogue torture. It's policy.

And why shouldn't we believe it when we see people agruing in front of congress that torture is used and is effective, but that they don't feel that it qualifies as torture. When you get to play with definitions you can make only the most extreem things torture.

 

[Huntster]

...Why did the administration spend alot of effort keeping military laws from applying to civilian interogators?....

Constitutionally (and court-tested long ago), sworn military personnel are governed under the UCMJ, and civilian personnel are not. Period. The administration has no say in the matter.

They are often outside the scope of any law, as they are out of any jurisdiction. So how can they commit a crime?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You're quite late and quite wrong. This whole torture bandwagon began with Abu Graib (an Army event), and it has never slowed down since. Like I wrote, it became a tool of election year propaganda.

That is crap, the bush administration has for years been putting out docutments supporting things that would normaly be concidered torture....

Then it should be quite easy for you to cite and link some. Please do so.

....Abu Graib is just the problem of their policies mixing. The problem there is that the army people where told to soften up people, if they had just left the torture to the professionals, CIA and independant contracters, then no laws would have been broken.

Are you stating that U.S. State Department and Intelligence Agency personnel overseas are exempt from U.S. law because they're overseas?

You keep putting the focus on the army, but it was always civilian inteligence agency that was the focus of the administrations attempts to legalize torture.

The Abu Graib scandal involved Army personnel, Army courts martial, and DoD policy review. DoD contractors are subject to Army contracts, which are governed by Army and DoD policy. There is now focus on CIA practices.

Or claiming that they already have the right to have people tortured(remember that memo that showed the attorny generals legal opinion when he was a white house lawyer?)

Cite and link the opinion, please.

Quote:
I just got done responding to you with more than one U.S. law which clearly state that U.S. policy on torture is based on the U.S. Constitution (which, I believe, is inappropriately applied to non-U.S. guerrilla combatants), and (as you are so clearly illustrating) that won't even shut the domestic whiners up.

In other words, Perry Mason, Syrian terrorists caught engaging in terrorist acts in Iraq by U.S. military personnel have the same legal protections that you have in DumbF***, USA, from torture.

Not happy yet?

And does it extend to the CIA and private contracters?

It covers CIA activities and civilian government contractors.

How do they define torture or is that left up the the president?

Please read the law I cited and linked instead of repeating mantra, propaganda, or pure BS. The definition is there. I even highlighted it for you.

You are clearly exhibiting behavior which demonstrates your inability to rise above propaganda. Here's a clue; read the law, not the National Enquirer's report on the law.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not demand, simply request.

I was being facetious, and taking an opportunity to engage in hyperbole, using your post as a springboard into silliness.

My hope is simply that people who share skeptical ideals would feel more comfortable expressing their claims and arguments clearly -- even though it takes longer and runs the risk of running over-long, as my posts often do.

As a courtesy, and as a show of modest respect to the reading audience on the forum, it is not too much to ask.

Thank you for your support on this.

Your humble servant.

I look forward to discussing with you via PM the ways in which we will treat those who do not voluntarily comply with this request once we have overthrown the old regime here and established the new order.

You just committed the criime of Operational Security Violation. The entire plot was supposed to be via PM. We have lost the element of surprise. Into the caves, quick, before the black helicopters get here! They are on to us!

Any discussion of this is Top Secret.

Then why didn't you correctly annotate that paragraph?

2. (TS) Thank you for your support on this. I look forward to discussing with you via PM the ways in which we will treat those who do not voluntarily comply with this request once we have overthrown the old regime here and established the new order.

3. (TS) (Oh, and don't worry about expressing yourself freely. Any discussion of this is Top Secret.)
DECL 08 NOV 2009

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Constitutionally (and court-tested long ago), sworn military personnel are governed under the UCMJ, and civilian personnel are not. Period. The administration has no say in the matter.



Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Who's law where the contracters under? Where they being say investigated in Iraq and those eastern european countries where the secret prisons where? They where not in the US, and not US military personel.

Who investigates them? Who prosecutes them?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The same way Abu Graib came to light:

Ah being illegaly exposed on the news, as there where internal reports for a very long time before that

Here are the convictions and disciplinary measures I know of:

The U.S. Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Pvt. Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brig. General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of colonel on May 5, 2005.

You claim the story was "illegaly exposed on the news."

Please provide some evidence that:

1) It was illegally exposed, and

2) there was a criminal prosecution for so illegally exposing the story.

Quote:
Whistleblowers.

Who not get locked up in this reading for outing top secret information.

Correct; "who not get locked up."

Please provide some evidence that any whistleblowers at all involved in the torture scandal or propaganda effort have been legally prosecuted at all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then it should be quite easy for you to cite and link some. Please do so.



Are you stating that U.S. State Department and Intelligence Agency personnel overseas are exempt from U.S. law because they're overseas?

Why else is the prison in Guantonimo? It was an attempt to put it in legal limbo.

The Abu Graib scandal involved Army personnel, Army courts martial, and DoD policy review. DoD contractors are subject to Army contracts, which are governed by Army and DoD policy. There is now focus on CIA practices.

Ah it wasn't torture anyway, it never got to the extent of pain equivelent to organ failure right?

Please read the law I cited and linked instead of repeating mantra, propaganda, or pure BS. The definition is there. I even highlighted it for you.

You are clearly exhibiting behavior which demonstrates your inability to rise above propaganda. Here's a clue; read the law, not the National Enquirer's report on the law.

And never listen to the administration for their views on it, it is not like just because they repeatedly try to argue for their right to torture, and make the definition of torture so extreem that most activities are not covered.

Of course I must be makeing all of their arguements about such things up right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

are the convictions and disciplinary measures I know of:



You claim the story was "illegaly exposed on the news."

Please provide some evidence that:

1) It was illegally exposed, and

2) there was a criminal prosecution for so illegally exposing the story.

If you are making such techniques top secret, this kind of exposure is what you are trying to prevent.

Correct; "who not get locked up."

Please provide some evidence that any whistleblowers at all involved in the torture scandal or propaganda effort have been legally prosecuted at all.

And with many of them they where certainly trying to get them locked up. They don't want the public to know what they are doing when they ignore laws.

 

[Darth Rotor]

are the convictions and disciplinary measures I know of:



You claim the story was "illegaly exposed on the news."

Please provide some evidence that:

1) It was illegally exposed, and

2) there was a criminal prosecution for so illegally exposing the story.



Correct; "who not get locked up."

Please provide some evidence that any whistleblowers at all involved in the torture scandal or propaganda effort have been legally prosecuted at all.

PT is the typical ignoramous who does not know the difference between classified information, privileged information, for official use only information, and "top secret" information.

How can one have a rational conversation on the topic, when the foaming mouth at the other end doesn't know the simple elements of the discussion at hand? It would be like discussing the basic methods of neurosurgery with me.

Pointless.

DR