A plunge from the moral heights

[kallend 2,174]

---------------------------------------------
A Plunge From the Moral Heights

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, June 10, 2004;


Come and sit with me for a moment. I am in a room, in a Middle Eastern country, and I am talking to a government official. He mentions the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S.-run prison outside Baghdad, and what this has done to America's image in his region. He smiles at what he says, for he is a man who appreciates irony. Of course, this same thing happens in his country, he says. Inwardly, I smile back, smug in my confidence that Abu Ghraib or no Abu Ghraib, America is a different sort of nation. It now seems I was a bit too smug.



The recent revelations that the Justice Department prepared memos parsing what is and what is not torture brings to mind regimes that, well, I would rather not bring to mind. These are the torturers of the world, although they deny it, and to bolster their lie they produce copious laws against the practice.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose Justice Department prepared the memos -- one of them running to 50 pages and signed by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel -- assured the Senate the other day that the memos are of no consequence. They were only internal Justice Department stuff, the scribblings of lawyers and -- most important -- the president has not "directed or ordered" torture, Ashcroft said. In another administration, such an assurance would be enough for me, but given this one's cavalier approach to civil liberties, I have to note that "directed" or "ordered" is not the same as condoned. That's what I wonder about.

I wonder, too, why the much-pressed Justice Department -- all those news releases to get out extolling Ashcroft -- went to all the trouble of coming up with definitions of torture that might be permissible under U.S. law when no one was supposedly considering torturing al Qaeda prisoners in the first place. A 50-page memo is not an hour's work. It's clear someone had torture in mind. The Defense Department and the CIA were looking for guidance.

In a way, you can understand why. The memos followed -- sometimes by more than a year -- the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. What if the CIA got its hands on a terrorist who it thought might have information about coming attacks? What should it do? What could it do? Could it, say, torture the guy a little bit -- not too much, mind you -- so he would cough up the information? In one of the memos leaked to The Post, the Justice Department said yes, precisely -- torture, but only a bit. "For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." This is a very odd -- shall we say "tortured" -- definition.

My dictionary, compiled by lexicographers and not, thank God, by lawyers, knows precisely what torture is. "To bring great physical or mental pain upon another," is one of several definitions. Simple. Had the CIA or the Pentagon turned to a Boy Scout troop or a gathering of Future Farmers of America, they would have said something similar. They also might say that, given human nature, it is as preposterous to talk about a little bit of torture as it is to talk about a little bit pregnant. This sort of stuff isn't possible to contain, and before you know it, a little torture is a lot of torture -- and who's to say at the moment whether the psychological "harm" cited in the memo is going to last a week or a lifetime? A little bit of torture can go a long, long way.

The Bush administration constantly reminds us that there's a war on. That's wrong. There are two. One is being fought by soldiers in combat, and the other is being fought for the hearts and minds of people who are not yet our enemies. However badly the administration has botched the first war -- where, oh where, is Osama bin Laden? -- it has done even worse with the second. It has jutted its chin to the world, appeared pugnacious and unilateralist, permitted the abuse of POWs and others at Abu Ghraib, and now toyed in some fashion with torture. The Bush administration has shamed us all, reducing us to the level of those governments that also have wonderful laws forbidding torture, but condone it anyway.

It is commonly said that we are a nation of laws, not men. And we are. But beyond the laws, we are also a nation of men and women with a common ethic. Some things are not American. Torture, for damned sure, is one of them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

More:

www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/8885140.htm?1c

and

www.bouldernews.com/bdc/editorials/article/0,1713,BDC_2489_2951368,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Prof:

You know I'm a right winger. So, here's my take:

I'm fed up with the "Criminal Defense Attorney" tactics of the Bush administration with regards to torture. What I mean is this - criminal defense attorneys try to duck, dodge and weave throughout a law, arguing for exceptions and other things. Ultimately, they hope to take a valid law and make it either invalid or unenforceable.

On the one hand, you've got a Pentagon memo arguing that torture is allowable at Gitmo because it is US soil, and the applicable laws apply only to activities outside of US territory. On the other hand, you've got the Attorney General memos arguing that torture is allowed at Gitmo because the applicable laws forbid torture on US soil, and Gitmo is in Cuba, and therefore can be allowed.

Fundamentally, I'm fed up with the intellectual and political dishonesty of the whole affair. The following:

Quote

"For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."

The physiological and mental effects of sleep deprivation are apparent after only one day.

Quote

Some things are not American. Torture, for damned sure, is one of them.

Amen. By torturing, we become what we despise. And the terrorists will have won at destroying a part of the American ethos.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[crozby 0]

Hypothetical situation:

You've captured somebody who has information that you know will prevent 10,000 civilian deaths in the near future.

He will not provide the information voluntarily.

What do you do?

[markd_nscr986 0]

I wonder if.......Mr Cohen would resort to "information extraction" if he had credible intel of a suspect having knowledge of an impending nuclear attack on of of our largest cities?You suppose he would consider torture then or by placing himself on the high moral ground,refusing to torture and let the nuke detonate......he is very quick to criticize methods that must be employed to protect our country,no matter how unsavory some misguided people find the methods.He claims we share a collective "shame"because of alleged doublespeak on the administrations part.The only shame I feel are for the people like Mr Cohen that have not realised the true gravity of the situation and probably wont until the expanding 10000 degree gas cloud incinerates them

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Tonto 1]

What would I do?

I wouldn't torture. Those 10000 people are going to die anyway. No one lives forever.

I've lived through a generation of young men who did things "for the cause" in South Africa - and it doesn't matter.

The only things that matters are right, wrong and consequence.

Don't become what you dispise.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I wonder if.......Mr Cohen would resort to "information extraction" if he had credible intel of a suspect having knowledge of an impending nuclear attack on of of our largest cities?

Define "credible intel". You mean like the stuff we had on Iraq's WMDs?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhillyKev 0]

Finally got to see Ashcroft's testimony in front of Congress.

They asked him for the memos, he refused. They asked him if he was invoking executive privilege, he said no. They asked him by what law or rule he was witholding a direct request by congress. He responded that he believed it would make him less effective as an advisor to the president if he complied.

They pointed out that his beliefs are not laws and that he can't just believe himself out of contempt of congress.

This guy is the epitome of arrogance.

[markd_nscr986 0]

uh.....i guess you dont consider sarin a wmd then?

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What would I do?

I wouldn't torture. Those 10000 people are going to die anyway. No one lives forever.

I've lived through a generation of young men who did things "for the cause" in South Africa - and it doesn't matter.

The only things that matters are right, wrong and consequence.

Don't become what you dispise.

t

I have to agree. We have to stick to our principals. We can't succumb to immoral policies based on what might happen or what we might prevent.

[Trent 0]

I figured that people would dodge that question. Tonto had the balls to answer, even though that answer is unfathomable to me.

How about this? You've got a guy who has a bomb strapped to your daughter/mother/father/sister, he won't tell you where they are so that the bomb can be defused. The bomb is set to go off in a short amount of time. What do you do?

If it takes me doing something irreversible to the guy to get information that may save 1 or 1000 lives, I'll live with the consequences of that. If making myself the bad guy saves lives, so be it.

You can go on and give him a coffee and apoligize to him for whatever you did to him that made him kill your people, shake his hand, and send him on his way.

Now, how do you know who REALLY has information worth twisting a nipple to get out? Reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence in large amounts, somebody credible ratted them out, I dunno, but I'm not a professional interrogator.

Oh, hello again!

[Ron 10]

Quote

I wouldn't torture. Those 10000 people are going to die anyway. No one lives forever.

How about kill?

A guy is holding a group of school kids. You think he is going to kill them and you have a clean shot.

Do you take the shot? Kill him to save a bus load of kids?

I'd take the shot.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hypothetical situation:

You've captured somebody who has information that you know will prevent 10,000 civilian deaths in the near future.

He will not provide the information voluntarily.

What do you do?

Realistic situation:

You've captured somebody whom you think may have information that you think may prevent 10,000 civilian deaths in the near future.

He claims no knowledge.

What do you do?

Answer:

Ensure that his rights as guaranteed under that Constitution we have (you know that document created by Dead White Men that liberals have for the past 50 years said is "dated" and "obsolete" while up till a couple of years ago conservatives and Republicans vigorously defende?).

So, you've got a guy that you think has this information. Work him over for a few hours, days or weeks until you get the answer you're looking for, right? In other words, make sure the guy will say anything to make it stop.

Yeah, what a way to get good reliable intelligence. Guess why we stopped subscribing to the torture thing so long ago.

Edited to add: Keep me awake without food for a week, and I'll give you information about how I've heard that skybytch sells 135's to 300 pound 30 jump wonders. Then you can use your credible intelligence to raid her offices, thus saving future lives...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DJL 235]

Quote

What do you do?

Take the moral high ground. It's the only thing that will end it all. And yes, I do mean this in the most absolute sense. The only way we can "win" is to be better than this.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[pajarito 0]

That is a tough situation. Different from what we're talking about I think, however. Yours is an immediate time sensitive situation. Most are just what might happen in the future. Yours is what is going to happen if you don't take action now. I don't really know. I think you'd have to take whatever action necessary to stop the action in your specific example. Again, that's a tough moral dilemma.

[pajarito 0]

Taking the "moral high ground" is what we should do, however, sadly, it won't "end it all." There will always be attrocity no matter what we or others do.

[jdhill 0]

Is their motivation money, or a cause (religion, political, etc)? If their motivation is a cause, torture is not reliable... if their motivation is money, they probably value their own life, so threats to that *may* produce results...

On another note.. when did physiological coercion become torture? Guess that means the police are going to have a tough time questioning anyone...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Trent 0]

I just want to see where some of these super "High-Ground" guys draw the line. If you're pretty sure that someone has info and it will cost 1000s of lives if it is not learned, what do you do?

"I bombed your homes, give me a smoke and a sandwich, I still won't tell you where the bombs or badguys are"

Oh, hello again!

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Quote

I wouldn't torture. Those 10000 people are going to die anyway. No one lives forever.

How about kill?

A guy is holding a group of school kids. You think he is going to kill them and you have a clean shot.

Do you take the shot? Kill him to save a bus load of kids?

I'd take the shot.

Me too. Here I have the evidence right in front of me. There is no "maybe I have the wrong guy." He's doing his job, you're doing yours. No conflict.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

daughter/mother/father/sister,

They all love me for who I am. I will not torture. I will not become what I dispise. I will not change from the man they love to further their lives.

No one lives forever - everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. Death is part of who we are, and part of our future. We need not seek it, but we needn't hide from it either.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

There is no "maybe I have the wrong guy." He's doing his job, you're doing yours. No conflict.

So how 'bout if there is no doubt the individual has information that will prevent the death of 10,000?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Jib 0]

Is spanking torture? Is standing someone in the corner? Is torture like porn: you know it when you see it? Is it like cruel and unusual punishment? Not that we can agree on what that is.
What's the problem with asking for a definition?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[DJL 235]

Quote

I just want to see where some of these super "High-Ground" guys draw the line. If you're pretty sure that someone has info and it will cost 1000s of lives if it is not learned, what do you do?

Sure, if no one were to ever find out then I'd cook their nipples with a blow torch. I've even tied down my roommate and pressed my knee into his jaw just because he was acting like a bitch... But we're talking about representing your country to the world. The hypothetical discussion is pointless. 1000, even 10,000 lives is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme.

I'd like to see where some of you on the other side draw the line. 10 people? 1000 people? 10,000 people? Let's say you have them all lined up. When do you stop pulling the trigger?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Trent 0]

Quote

1000, even 10,000 lives is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme.

So what's the problem with torturing one more? If 10,000 lives is a drop in the bucket to you, who cares about the one guy you've got?

Quote

I'd like to see where some of you on the other side draw the line. 10 people? 1000 people? 10,000 people? Let's say you have them all lined up. When do you stop pulling the trigger?

That's silly, why pull the trigger? They're useless dead. They might have info that saves more "drops in the bucket".

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,174]

Maybe you're too young to remember the moral outrage we had over the way the Japanes treated prisoners during WWII. And they hadn't even signed on the the Geneva conventions.

The USA has signed on to those conventions. The President signed and the Senate ratified them, as well as other treaties banning torture. As I recall, there was no "unless" or "with the exception of" in those treaties.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.