How Cheney/Addington/Yoo and Rumsfeld destroyed US Credibility

[headscratcher4]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8158087.stm

BBC clip of US military condemning the treatment of US Soldier captured by the Taliban.

Certainly, what the Taliban does with this poor man will probably be a crime, dispcable and immoral...but if they water-board him, put him in stress positions, take pictures of him will being tortured, how is what they are doing any worse than what the US did?

I am NOT suggesting moral equivelency...I am suggesting that Cheney et al have left us in a situation where our moral argument...it is wrong, it is torutre, it is a crime, it is uncivilized...will ring hollow. They have disarmed us in the war over the moral high-ground and in no way proven that this high price was worth paying.

 

[theprestige]

He'll be lucky to get off with nothing worse than a waterboarding, as the practice is documented by the CIA.

If CIA-style waterboarding and stress positions are the worst things that happen to him, then frankly I don't see the problem.

Now, if you were to claim that because the U.S. authorizes waterboarding and stress positions, it has no moral credibility when it comes to objecting to things like mutilation and execution, then I'd have to disagree with you.

 

[Chaos]

He'll be lucky to get off with nothing worse than a waterboarding, as the practice is documented by the CIA.

If CIA-style waterboarding and stress positions are the worst things that happen to him, then frankly I don't see the problem.

Now, if you were to claim that because the U.S. authorizes waterboarding and stress positions, it has no moral credibility when it comes to objecting to things like mutilation and execution, then I'd have to disagree with you.

Cheney et al have certainly taken immense pains to minimize the US´ high ground versus things like mutilation and execution.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8158087.stm

BBC clip of US military condemning the treatment of US Soldier captured by the Taliban.

Certainly, what the Taliban does with this poor man will probably be a crime, dispcable and immoral...but if they water-board him, put him in stress positions, take pictures of him will being tortured, how is what they are doing any worse than what the US did?

I am NOT suggesting moral equivelency...I am suggesting that Cheney et al have left us in a situation where our moral argument...it is wrong, it is torutre, it is a crime, it is uncivilized...will ring hollow. They have disarmed us in the war over the moral high-ground and in no way proven that this high price was worth paying.

The worst of this is that many many of us, less politically astute than the leaders of the US, saw this coming. I'm thinking of applying for the Mil. George W. Bush made me right a lot...

 

[headscratcher4]

He'll be lucky to get off with nothing worse than a waterboarding, as the practice is documented by the CIA.

If CIA-style waterboarding and stress positions are the worst things that happen to him, then frankly I don't see the problem.

Now, if you were to claim that because the U.S. authorizes waterboarding and stress positions, it has no moral credibility when it comes to objecting to things like mutilation and execution, then I'd have to disagree with you.

Fantastic...we're left standing tall and proud with civilized nations against mutilation...I don't think we have much high ground on executions any more.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You folks seem to be a bit shy on your history. Why don't we go back to that hijacking, over two decades ago, and the arbitrary execution of a sailor on liberty/leave because "he was a SEAL" (he wasn't) by the usual Islamist creeps.

Or more recently a couple of soldiers captured in Iraq whose body were later found.

Islamists like to kill their captives, especially when they are American soldiers. It gives them Woodies. We even get to see them cut a head off on video, now and again. Go get your popcorn, it's lovely entertainment to the web obsessed in the world, and the media maroons.

What would be unusual is for this soldier to be returned. However, given the video as a tool in the political arena, maybe what they are after is a trade of some sort.

At this point, a bit tough to say.

DR

PS: if you don't understand what an Islamist is, please ask Undercover Elephant, who has one of the more nuanced grasps of this sub culture that I've seen in a while.

 

[Upchurch]

If CIA-style waterboarding and stress positions are the worst things that happen to him, then frankly I don't see the problem.

You don't see the problem in foreign nationals torturing US soldiers? Really? It escapes you?

eta: Is it the torture you don't mind or that its being done to people who volunteer their lives to protect you?

 

[Chaos]

You don't see the problem in foreign nationals torturing US soldiers? Really? It escapes you?

I think his point was that he sees no problem in something happening which a US administration has defined as not being torture and which they have applied to any foreign national they ****ing well please.

Perhaps if the foreign nationals declared the US soldiers "unlawful combatants", would that make it better?

 

[theprestige]

You don't see the problem in foreign nationals torturing US soldiers? Really? It escapes you?

eta: Is it the torture you don't mind or that its being done to people who volunteer their lives to protect you?

I think his point was that he sees no problem in something happening which a US administration has defined as not being torture and which they have applied to any foreign national they ****ing well please.

Perhaps if the foreign nationals declared the US soldiers "unlawful combatants", would that make it better?

I mean:

• that I don't think it's so egregiously harmful that it should be taken off the list of valid interrogation techniques;
• that I don't think that the practice documented by the CIA--creating a sensation of drowning without the risk of drowning, with limiits on applications per day and duration in days, with trained psychologists and medics in attendance at all times--is as bad as many other things a soldier is expected to experience in a combat zone;
• that while I would prefer to see it used only in a limited fashion in an attempt to acquire useful operational intelligence, and that in this sense I do see the problem with Talibani using it on American POWs (unless, of course, they happen to be trained professionals, using it in a limited fashion in an attempt to acquire useful operational intelligence, in which case, we do it too so sauce for the goose...); and
• given that the Talibani are likely to apply such techniques purely as gratuitous torture, with no other motive or excuse than "stick it to the foreign pigs" and/or "two wrongs don't make a right, but they sure make us feel good!", then I think that in the unlikely event that they did restrain themselves to CIA-style "harsh interrogation techniques", rather than escalating to other, truly brutal forms of gratuitous torture (such as mutiliation and slow execution), then the soldier will be very fortunate indeed, and will survive with much less trauma than many of his comrades. And that, to me, is not a problem.

 

[headscratcher4]

I mean:

• that I don't think that the practice documented by the CIA--creating a sensation of drowning without the risk of drowning, with limiits on applications per day and duration in days, with trained psychologists and medics in attendance at all times--is as bad as many other things a soldier is expected to experience in a combat zone;

Little problem. Before Cheney, Yoo, et al. we used to prosecute this activity. Further, it would be unethical for a licenced psychologist or doctor to particpate in these activities.

What bothers me is that there should be no mixed messages. Regardless of how low those who oppose us may sink, we will not adopt or adapt their practices. Where they operate beyond the rule of law, we will operate completely within it. Where they operate outside of civilized norms, will will adhear to them as faithfully as we can.

I note Admiral Mullin's statements:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/mullen.detainee.abuse/index.html?eref=rss_politics

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote the service chiefs and the U.S. combatant commanders around the world that mistreatment of detainees would have a continued and lasting negative effect on the image of U.S. forces.

"Despite our best efforts, a misguided and misled few have managed to tarnish that reputation and breach the very trust we have worked so hard to earn. I am appalled by even the suggestion that someone in an American uniform would behave in such a way," he wrote in the memo. CNN obtained the memo, which was classified as "sensitive."

Yes, he was responding to pictures of the "un-authorized" (it's only a few bad apples) activities at AbuGrabe ... but the world paints with a broad brush. These actions put our soldiers in danger with the crazies and outlaws like AlQeda...but they also put us in danger of losing the moral high ground with actual world governments...e.g. North Korea or Cuba...if we behave they way they do...even just a little bit...it gives them points to score against us they should never have, IMO.

 

[theprestige]

Little problem. Before Cheney, Yoo, et al. we used to prosecute this activity. Further, it would be unethical for a licenced psychologist or doctor to particpate in these activities.

So? The only problem I see here is that I disagree with the pre-Cheney policy, and prefer the post-Cheney policy. Further, the process as documented by the CIA does in fact specify that a psychologist and a medic will be present during these sessions. Personally, I think it ethical. I assume the participants did as well. Perhaps they valued national security more than APA brownie points?

What bothers me is that there should be no mixed messages. Regardless of how low those who oppose us may sink, we will not adopt or adapt their practices. Where they operate beyond the rule of law, we will operate completely within it. Where they operate outside of civilized norms, will will adhear to them as faithfully as we can.

All messages are mixed. Anybody, anywhere, anytime, can find any excuse they like to justify doing whatever they please.

I note Admiral Mullin's statements:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/23/mullen.detainee.abuse/index.html?eref=rss_politics

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote the service chiefs and the U.S. combatant commanders around the world that mistreatment of detainees would have a continued and lasting negative effect on the image of U.S. forces.

"Despite our best efforts, a misguided and misled few have managed to tarnish that reputation and breach the very trust we have worked so hard to earn. I am appalled by even the suggestion that someone in an American uniform would behave in such a way," he wrote in the memo. CNN obtained the memo, which was classified as "sensitive."

Yes, he was responding to pictures of the "un-authorized" (it's only a few bad apples) activities at AbuGrabe ... but the world paints with a broad brush. These actions put our soldiers in danger with the crazies and outlaws like AlQeda...but they also put us in danger of losing the moral high ground with actual world governments...e.g. North Korea or Cuba...if we behave they way they do...even just a little bit...it gives them points to score against us they should never have, IMO.

I think that Admiral Mullen's points are worth considering. And having considered them, I find that my opinion on the matter remains unchanged: Waterboarding is not the worst thing in the world; the people holding this soldier prisoner have plenty of credibility problems of their own making, without anyone having to blame the US for their behavior; and if they give this guy nothing worse than a CIA-style waterboarding, he'll be lucky (and a lot better off than many soldiers end up during war time).

 

[banquetbear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwTPQjT0hA

...this just seemed like the right thread to post this into.