Smoking Gun: FBI memo - Bush authorizes torture

[amicus]

Well, I can only hope that both of you are wrong in your assessment of the future in the middle east.

I remain optimistic, however, my optimism is based on a metaphysical presumption and not a knowledge of middle east politics.

I propose that there is an innate desire by every human being to be free. I think the insatiable desire for freedom by women and young people throughout the middle east will emerge and work for a democratic government sans the powerful clerics.

I also think that similar forces are at work in adjacent middle east nations, awaiting only a mild success in the January elections before they demand an end to oppressive government they now live under.

On another thread, I spoke of the 'civilizing' effect that British colonization had all over the globe in earlier times.

I foresee the same results in the middle east given the lasting presence of the United States and other coalition countries who see a peaceful middle east as essential for prosperity in the region and in nearby Europe and Asia.

Someday, hopefully, you who are detractors, will have an epiphany and realize just how honorable and courageous the free world has been as they bring freedom to an oppressed people.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

just wondered if some people here are saying that torture--e.g., to obtain information-- 1) is never morally defensible, 2) is never necessary, and 3) never has overall good results.

 

[Slowlane]

Right on amicus...

 

[shereads]

just wondered if some people here are saying that torture--e.g., to obtain information-- 1) is never morally defensible, 2) is never necessary, and 3) never has overall good results.

I choose Door #1, "Never morally defensible." As for results, if you take the long view, torturing prisoners to obtain a short-term goal didn't save the Nazis, the Shah of Iran, that little man who bought shoes for Imelda Marcos, or the many CIA-sponsored Presidents-for-Life who ruled across Latin America a few years back. Even Mr. Pinochet hasn't had a moment's peace since Kissinger stopped taking his phone calls.

For me, the point isn't what can be gained by sinking to that level, but what is lost? A torturer is the moral inferior of his victim. Societies that use torture rot from within.

 

[cantdog]

I'll take D, All of the above.

We already live in a society with a good deal of casual torture on a private basis for fun and profit. Institutionalizing the practice is a misstep. Currently it's illegal by US law. That's why Bush's authorization of it is an impeachable offense, one of many. It's unconsitutional as well, violating his oath of office. The fucking buck stops right on shrub's fuckin desk. His own directive states there shall be no torture without explicit authorization from his office. There was torture. It ain't too fuckin surprising that a memo from his office authorizing it exists, therefore. This is old news. Hersh wrote a fuckin book about it and there's been an official report by a congressional committee published.

But nationalists can never muster the ethical will to believe anything immoral what so ever if it happens to be done by our side.

So they will never care. It requires morality to care.

 

[shereads]

Currently it's illegal by US law. That's why Bush's authorization of it is an impeachable offense, one of many.

You noticed that too?

I thought a president had to lie "under oath" to be impeachable by Republican standards. Isn't that why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission? Or does the lying-under-oath criterion exclusively apply to fellatio?

It's unconsitutional as well, violating his oath of office.

Bush discarded the oath when he justified the denial of habeus corpus by announcing that the president's first responsibility is to protect the American people.

As I recall, the president's first responsibility is "to preserve and protect the Constitution," whose framers believed that if the Constitution survived, America would too. Bush believes he has a duty to weaken our rights under the Constitution if, in his opinion, he can better protect our safety. His position not only makes a joke of the presidential oath of office; it's so paternalistic, it should make his supporters feel like girls.




"He who would sacrifice essential freedom to gain temporary safety deserves neither freedom nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin

"Amicus, this means you." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Who's Amicus? And who is Thomas Jefferson?" ~ George W. Bush

"Patriotism is a childhood illness; the measles of mankind." ~ Albert Einstein

"Laura and I have both had measles. I had the clap once at Andover, if that helps." ~ George W. Bush

 

[cantdog]

Einstein was right.

Wow. I always wondered what it would be like to say that.

"Let me rush to Professor Einstein's defense, here. He is perfectly correct."

Dood!

 

[cantdog]

I mean, nationalism is childish, just a stage. "Grow up," I want to tell 'em. But they're fulminating and it's polite to wait until they get done.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
just wondered if some people here are saying that torture--e.g., to obtain information-- 1) is never morally defensible, 2) is never necessary, and 3) never has overall good results.

It may be morally defensible--it really all depends on what we're founding our ethics on. It may be necessary--depends on what's at stake and what other options there are. It may have an overall good result--I suppose one would have to catalogue the entirety of the aftermath.

And... I'm not sure that the authorization of torturous acts during war-time on terrorists (which I think is what the category they're supposed to fit into is) is a US crime. We don't really have domestic laws for a lot of the things the military does, on purpose.

 

[cantdog]

What war?

 

[shereads]

Einstein was right.

Wow. I always wondered what it would be like to say that.

 

[shereads]

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. The author of "Get Your War On" has generally posted some of post-election installments of the strip at http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war43.html

The selfish bastard defeats cut-and-paste attachments by using Red Mystery Ink. With the single exception of today's special Christmas episode. (See attachment.)



Meanwhile, here's one from November that works without pictures and seems custom-written for the AH. It's dated Nov.

~~~

"Please don't forget: We need to be nice to the Red State folks. We need to respect their beliefs. If we condescend to them, it'll just make them angrier and somehow more backwards. We've still got the theory of gravity; let's not blow it."

"Roger that. So - Freedom is on the march. Evolution is "just a theory." MTV makes people gay. The Rapture is coming. Saddam Hussein planned 9/11. Poverty is caused by laziness. And President Bush is a stronger leader because he once stood atop a pile of rubble in lower Manhattan and yelled into a megaphone. Wow. I feel more authentic already."

"And remember, the place for "intelligent design" is in a biology book, not an Iraq policy. Who cares if we fuck up the world? It's only, like, 800 years old, right?"



~~~

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

How does torture get new reliable knowledge that you can successfully act upon?

I mean if, as has been the case, the torturers view the torturees as inhuman then they will not listen to truth and will instead keep torturing the poor bastard until they make up shit in order to stop the pain.

I mean if you were approaching death, your genitals felt like they'd done four tours of Beirut, you haven't slept in four days, a grinning asshole who you can barely understand keeps smacking you with a nightstick, and you have no hope of release if you are innocent, your natural response will be to say whatever the fuck will appease the asshole, admit to whatever they want since refusing or saying the truth sure as hell aint working.

Thus, the most common information gained from said method will be unreliable bullshit, force attention and resources away from legitimate security concerns toward false alarms, and etc...

In essence, it serves only as an outlet for revenge, a tool to make us feel better like the inadequate yet more invasive security procedures on airlines. Golly, I sure feel safe now being patted on the bum when a Charlie Chaplin reject can slip anything they want into the baggage compartment. Also, I feel great that anyone and their mother can waltz into most nuclear power plants and chemical plants. Gee whiz, golly yes.

It's all about impression in this fucking country nowadays. It's about what the shiny picture is. The rhetoric, the form, the marketing. Substance, truth, and all that jazz have become irrelevant. It's probably because they hurt so much. The truth is that security is an illusion. It's impossible to protect yourself one hundred percent against people who are willing to go to great lengths to kill you. The truth is that bin-Ladin and a decentralized network don't produce as many glorious photo-ops and recognizable targets as a real nation. The truth is that democracy must arise naturally in the Middle East or it won't at all. They hate us over there and any American backed system is viewed as a puppet government. The truth is Afghanistan is collapsing and Iraq will devolve into Civil War the second after the first election when Shiites and Kurds fight back against Sunnis trying out the whip hand for once. The truth is that no one gives a damn about truth. All that matters is the fucking image.

Arab looking men attacked us. We are torturing Arab looking men. Therefore 9/11 is avenged. That's the substance for the masses. The flimsy rationalization is just for the whiny assholes that believe that truth still has merit in America.


Nngh, fuck it. I refuse to slip into this right before Christmas. Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and Happy Solstice everyone and may politics for one blessed day of the year slip from your worldview leaving you to enjoy the real objects of life:

That is friends, family, peace, and love.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
How does torture get new reliable knowledge that you can successfully act upon?

I mean if, as has been the case, the torturers view the torturees as inhuman then they will not listen to truth and will instead keep torturing the poor bastard until they make up shit in order to stop the pain.

I mean if you were approaching death, your genitals felt like they'd done four tours of Beirut, you haven't slept in four days, a grinning asshole who you can barely understand keeps smacking you with a nightstick, and you have no hope of release if you are innocent, your natural response will be to say whatever the fuck will appease the asshole, admit to whatever they want since refusing or saying the truth sure as hell aint working.

Thus, the most common information gained from said method will be unreliable bullshit, force attention and resources away from legitimate security concerns toward false alarms, and etc...

People keep saying "oh, people will say ANYTHING to get it to stop"... but, that includes "the truth".

A micro-example and a macro-example:

I once held a kid down on the playground when I was eight and slapped him until he told me where he kept his lunch money. It took about four good licks before he told me. Torturous acts can bring about the truth. Was it possible that he could have told me a lie (he didn't, in reality)? Sure. But it also prompted him to tell me the truth. It, essentially, did work.

Another example, and this one is less pleasant. We parade the idea of the prisoner of war and their noble struggle for survival and all that, but the truth is--not every prisoner of war has been that tight-lipped tough guy in the movies. Amongst the issues in the aftermath of WWII were cases of torturous acts (obviously eclipsed by greater war crimes, at the time) and their effects. In the Pacific theater we learned a great deal (much, though not all of it was true) about movements through prisoners and the threats or enaction of torturous acts.

To dismiss it as some kind of "Mel Gibson in Payback telling bullshit to Chris Christopherson" useless thing is just ignorant. I does have the ability to produce results. Its really more of a question of "ought we" than a statement of "its absolutely in all cases nonsense".

 

[cantdog]

Joe's right. But that is the wrong question. You're arguing with nationalists, they'll say

absolutely wrong thing to countenance

but if there's even a whisker of a chance it gets results then we use it.

Because they don't mean the first statement, even a little bit. It's really, to a nationalist, wrong only for them to do, and never for us to do. It's us/them thinking. Warps everything. Nationalists have the morals of poland china hogs.

 

[shereads]

Nationalists have the morals of poland china hogs.

Pigs are social animals with intelligence comparable to dogs' and can be affectionate. Even heroic. After Christmas, remind me to tell you about the 3-legged pig...

 

[Tracy93]

The "insurgents" in Iraq are, for the most part, not even Iraqis. They are affilliates of terrorists, coming to try and defy the American military. Without any uniform or army as such, they are terrorists, using terror to try and influence.

The Geneva Convention specifically protects orgainzed soldiers, wearing uniforms, protection from the governments that signed it.

I still don't understand how being so f'n nice to these terrorists is helping any, seeing as though they murder anyone they capture.

Use humiliation and "humane" methods of torture (Loose interpretation, sleep deprevation, generally uncomfortable situations) to gain any information they have. Then try them for War-Crimes against the citizens of the world.

 

[cantdog]

You are correct in large measure. Many non-Iraqi terror groups entered the country and began to kidnap and behead and all that jive. They did this to provoke us against the Iraqis, because most people do not make the distinction you just made, Tracy.

They say, rather, "They are capturing, torturing, beheading!" and using it to counsel brutality against Iraqis in response. If we do that, we will have been manipulated by the beheading kidnapers. We will be acting as al-Qaeda wishes just like a puppet with bin Laden's hand up our ass.

Provocation. Ask the Brits about it in Ireland. We don't have the training for that kind of pressure, the way the Brits do. Our training is to pump people up so they'll kill, train them to kill effectively, but dealing with this situation in the occupied enclaves of Iraq, under the pressure of the kidnaps and bombings, this is not our strong suit. You have to be helpful, friendly, firm, just, careful. Flattening whole neighborhoods would never have been a good tactic in Ireland, even though the cowardly bomb attacks make anyone mad.

I don't believe being nice to terrorists was under discussion. But if we want to be able to persuade Iraqis we must act sensibly, beginning with not torturing them while praising ourselves because Saddam can no longer torture them any more. There is also a legitimate flat-out plain old insurgency in Iraq, by Iraqis, in addition to any terrorists. Both have to be dealt with.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

People keep saying "oh, people will say ANYTHING to get it to stop"... but, that includes "the truth".

A micro-example and a macro-example:

I once held a kid down on the playground when I was eight and slapped him until he told me where he kept his lunch money. It took about four good licks before he told me. Torturous acts can bring about the truth. Was it possible that he could have told me a lie (he didn't, in reality)? Sure. But it also prompted him to tell me the truth. It, essentially, did work.

Fair enough. But let's expand on this micro example. You ask a more intensive question with a less likelihood of truth, such as "tell me you like to suck cock" or "how many cocks have you sucked?" Both of these questions are standard among your bully subgroup in the school. You have the same victim type. He will invariably after being used as a punching bag agree loudly that he loves to suck fat dick and let you give him a wedgie even though he knows that this is a false statement.

Perhaps you expand on the question. "Tell me whose cock you sucked faggot?" or "Who else sucks cock?" With enough pain, he will cough up the first name that comes to mind if he's weak, "yo mama" if he's strong and stupid, or "no one's, stop it" if he is strong and stupid. If the second or third is given, you will continue to hurt him until the answer changes to the first or to the oft-desired answer of "everyone".

Now, if you used this information on faggot cocksuckers and say announced them to the school through a rumour mill, you would be spreading inaccuracies, but it wouldn't matter since you would accomplish the mission of dehumanizing and ostracizing them thus opening them up for another round of bullying with no friends to aid them.



Torturers and bullies actually have a lot in common. The main goal is not information or the enjoyment of sadism, it is divide and conquer. You first alienate them from their friends through rumours, threats, and lies. Then you come from a point of greater strength and destroy them.


The point is that very few of the people swept up in these torture camps are actually terrorists or have useful information about major terrorist plots. It is becoming common that they aren't insurgents either and again have no real information to spill to a bully/torturer/sadist. However, those without the shell of experience with bullies will spill what the torturers want regardless of whether it is true or right. There may be punishment in the future but the goal is to stop the pain now. Yes, there may be some real information among the fluff especially for high hit questions (like your "where is the lunch money" question) such as "who's leading your movement?", but it will be harder to find on questions like "where are the WMDs" which your average 15-year-old sniper or 33-year-old falafel slaesman is unlikely to carry.

The greater problem is that those most likely to have the most worthwhile information will have had great experience at either being a bully or being bullied as well as the usual gang-order code of silence which will drive them to greater resist the chattering sadist apes. Especially when they realize that since what most comes out of their mouths will be American cursewords and slang that they can easily drown out. I know for a fact that when I was getting readily beat up, my friends were being alienated from me, and I was the bully squads favorite target, I very quickly fell into the rote of taking everything, bottling all emotions about it, and remaining silent.

I'm sure the top Al-Queda operatives have far greater skills than a wee middle-school kid with MPS at those skills.


So, in conclusion, yes some real genuine solid information will come from torture, but it will be buried with a lot of crap and it guarantees that every single torture victim both innocent and guilty will learn a lifelong hatred of the people who performed the torture/bullying and will also develop a hatred for who they stand for as well as people who remind them of the torturers. So, for one nugget, buried in time-wasting garbage, which may not come unless you luck out and snag a genuine high-level operative with key knowledge, you create potential rebels and rebel leaders among the innocent riffraff, guarantee spread stories of inhumanity among the populace, and risk serving as Recruitment posters for insurgents and Al-Queda. Not to mention that by crossing the line, you advocate inhumane treatment of your own soldiers, such as the beheadings, lose the support of the populace both at home and in the world at large, and lose the all-so-important sympathy points. And so on and so forth.

Morality aside, it just isn't a good system on a cost-benefit basis, but that doesn't matter to the people who carry it out. The power that comes through bullying and the inadequate balm that is misguided revenge are what are truly sought in the system. And those two items are gained in great supply. And the sad part is that it would come in at the same supply if we were to round up a few hundred Quakers and do it to them.



P.S. Why doesn't it surprise me that you were a bully? It's probably why I feel like punching you sometimes. The hatred born from being the victim does in fact last forever.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The subject of torture is a sticky one, and really tied up in context. It’s one thing for Joe to sit on some kid’s chest and slap his face at recess. That's bullying. It would have been another thing entirely if Joe had brought a pliers to school and started planning how he was going to rip this kid’s finger nails out. I think at that point the guidance counselor would have stepped in.

What’s so distressing about the US use of torture is not so much that it was done. In the heat of battle or with captured enemy, cruelty is understandable. What's so disgusting is that it was sanctioned and institutionalized. It became policy.

The other relevent thing is that the torture as practiced in Gitmo and Ghraib was not confined to captured combatants, but was applied mostly to suspects picked up on suspicion. We pride ourselves in the west on our sense of justice and on the assumption that you’re innocent until proven guilty, and we just denied this to the people we picked up. Of course, a lot of people subscribe to the belief that being arrested is ipso facto proof of guilt, but anyone who’s had any serious dealing with law enforcement knows what a crock of shit that is. So basically, we were torturing innocent people.

We’ve pretty much moved beyond Abu Ghraib in the States, but in the Arab world it’s still very much alive, and I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that Abu Ghraib has done more to stir up anti-American laothing and totally fuck our attempts to prove our good intentions to Iraq than any other event since the war started. If you balance the damage done by torture with any good that’s come from it, I think you’d have to admit that, like so much in this war, it was a shockingly stupid mistake.

---dr.M.

 

[thebullet]

Dr. M. Said:
The other relevent thing is that the torture as practiced in Gitmo and Ghraib was not confined to captured combatants, but was applied mostly to suspects picked up on suspicion. We pride ourselves in the west on our sense of justice and on the assumption that you’re innocent until proven guilty, and we just denied this to the people we picked up. Of course, a lot of people subscribe to the belief that being arrested is ipso facto proof of guilt, but anyone who’s had any serious dealing with law enforcement knows what a crock of shit that is. So basically, we were torturing innocent people.

A recent series on NPR radio gave a shocking review about the torture of resident aliens in American prisons. The administration is now arresting resident aliens for minor offenses in their past, holding them for years, torturing them, and then deporting them.

NPR interviewed a number of victoms who had been tortured at Passaic County Prison in New Jersey. One man was arrested four years after he had been issued a citation as a teenager. He was held in prison for two years, tortured regularly and then deported to Africa. He was guilty of nothing, he held down a good job. He was not a terrorist, just a guy who had made a minor mistake when he was a kid.

Is this a great country or what?

 

[cantdog]

Fear.

If we can do this sort of thing
because of our fear,
what limit can we imagine on the actions
which fear of us will cause others to do?

Is the solution, then, to become more fearsome? To cause more fear? Look how well we handled it and ask yourself if we need a lot more people acting that way toward us.

People in that part of the world are not mysterious, inscrutable beings. They are house apes as we ourselves are, capable of literate abstraction, nobility, music, compassion, mother-love, and also panic, hatred, misapplied rationalization, cruelty, irreflective behavior.

People, in a word. Imagine how the people in your neighborhood would be under the same pressures. Make sure you remember that we lost most of them their jobs, because since the interim and provisional governments have been in, since the fall of the Baath government, the unemployment has skyrocketed to 80%. That means everyone is out of work. While their houses are rubble a lot of places. Add in the checkpoints, the swearing soldiers pointing guns at your children, all the things they are living through.

Now try to imagine what sorts of actions can be taken to make any of that any better. Because now, if you've done the imagination of their situation at all well, now you know what they are likely to do. Iraq under the Baath had univversal military service, too. All these men know how to operate a gun and how to do small unit tactics, and all that shit.

cantdog