The Truth Will Set You Free (Guest Voice)
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
by Rick Moran
I was a Johnny-come-lately to the idea that the severe interrogation techniques being employed against some prisoners held by the US crossed the line of legality and constituted illegal torture. Chalk it up to excessive partisanship. Or ignorance. Or perhaps fear of going against the grain of conservative opinion in the blogosphere.
The fact is, for more than a year after I began blogging, I either excused or ignored evidence that proved the Bush Administration was guilty of sacrificing our most cherished values in order to protect us. It wasn’t until early November of 2005 that I offered a somewhat rambling discourse on why torturing prisoners besmirched our nation’s good name and made the Bush Administration complicit in violations of American and international law. Despite being troubled by the evidence previous to that, I said nothing, wrote nothing, except the usual talking points still found, it pains me to say, in most conservative and Republican internet salons today.
What changed my mind?
I tried to reconstruct my thought process by going through my archives and it turns out that there were two people whose writing finally opened my eyes to the illegalities being practiced by the Bush Administration – two writers who I rarely read today for reasons not related to the torture issues but who I must give credit for forcing me to look at the horror and reach the same conclusion they had; John Cole and Andrew Sullivan.
To those who are now nodding their heads with a knowing smirk on their face I will only say this; outright dismissal of views based solely on a writer’s ideological or even political leanings is the mark of the incurious and the ignorant. A grain of salt or two is helpful to be sure.
Skepticism, the philosopher/educator Thomas Dewey remarked, is “the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.” And I am no doubt as guilty as the next blogger of being too quick with the snark when it comes to evaluating the case being made by an ideological opponent rather than using reason and logic to demolish an odious point of view.
Be that as it may, those two gentlemen’s writings were seminal in changing my opinion about what the Bush Administration was doing in our name. The fact that they believed sincerely they were doing it to protect us is not a valid excuse or justification. The idea that American military trainees also are forced to endure some of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” is the reasoning of a sophist. The trainees are not in United States custody and therefore, the officers responsible for these exercises are not subject to the same laws that military and intelligence professionals were required to follow with detainees – as were all officals in the Bush Administration.
And whether you believe the Geneva Convention applied in the case of “enemy combatants” is also beside the point; no one repealed American law under which the Bush Administration was required to operate. As the Bybee memo proves beyond any reasonable doubt, the Administration was seeking a legal fig leaf in order to skirt that law as well as international treaties of which we are a signatory that clearly defines torture.
IN OUR NAME: The newly released torture memos are cold-blooded and clearly client-driven – the lawyers knew the answers they wanted and reasoned backwards.
The same could be said of the Yoo memos when the Bush Administration was seeking legal justification for their torture. Yoo knew full well what the Administration wanted – a sort of “Get out of jail free” card that would cover their behinds if anyone ever found out what they were doing. While this is true, there is another dynamic at work that seems to get short shrift by Bush Administration critics -a dynamic that, in some ways, makes the lawbreaking even more chilling.
Sure, they wished above all else to protect America from another attack. The sincerity of their beliefs must be granted them else one wanders off into territory reserved for kooks who believe Bush was a sadist and enjoyed torturing people. That they displayed enormous hubris in giving the middle finger to the law and proceeding marks them as cynics of the highest order.
Again, Maguire:
The US concern about actually harming someone comes through on every page. In fact, at one point (p. 36 of .pdf) the legal team wonders whether it would be illegal for the interrogators to threaten or imply that conditions for the prisoner could get even worse unless they cooperate. I suppose these memos will provide welcome reassurance of our underlying civility to both the world community and the terrorists in it.
The same holds true when discussing the “insect war” being fought on the internet today.
The news that the Administration considered using one detainee’s fear of insects to extract information by locking him in a small box and telling him a stinging bug was in there with him is being derided on the right and used as proof that Bush was inhuman on the left. Both sides are wrong on this one.
Using the threat of a stinging insect on someone with a phobia knowing it will terrorize him is clearly psychological torture and violates both US law and the Geneva Convention. But please, let’s not exaggerate or use wild hyperbole to make this any more than it is; one more example of the law being tossed aside – and not a particularly egregious example at that. The technique was never used.
Andrew Sullivan, who ridiculously complained yesterday when, a couple of hours after the memos had been released, some conservative writers had not commented on them, nevertheless reaches into the past to get to the heart of what the airing of this chapter in American history means:
Perhaps you are reading these documents alongside me. I’ve only read the Bybee memo, as chilling an artefact as you are ever likely to read in a democratic society, the work clearly not of a lawyer assessing torture techniques in good faith, but of an administration official tasked with finding how torture techniques already decided upon can be parsed in exquisitely disingenuous ways to fit the law, even when they clearly do not. This is what Hannah Arendt wrote of when she talked of the banality of evil. To read a bureaucrat finding ways to describe and parse away the clear infliction of torture on a terror suspect well outside any “ticking time bomb” scenario is to realize what so many of us feared and sensed from the shards of information we have been piecing together for years. It is all true.
Sullivan and many on the left have raised the specter of the Gestapo and Nazi Germany when discussing the techniques used on detainees but I think that misses the point.
As Maguire points out, the Administration seemed torn about actually injuring even the worst of the terrorists they wished to single out for this treatment. Rather, it is the chilling, cold blooded legalese used by Bybee and the others that Andrew correctly judges as “the banality of evil.” It is reminiscent of the minutes that were found after World War II from the Wannsee Conference – the meeting of high level SS officers and Nazi party officials that developed “The Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.” The bureaucratic language of murder far surpasses in evil what the Bybee memo reveals.
But the tone is the same – a detatched, unemotional accounting of various torture regimes, whether they would hurt too much, whether the subject would be in any danger, how much psychological damage would be done by employing these techniques, and what kind of legal exposure interrogators would have. (Another, less apropos parallel but still relevant, would be some of the memos from I.G. Farban to the extermination camp commandants where the mass gassing of human beings using Zyklon-B was touted in language that must be read to be believed.)
No, Bush is not like Hitler nor is his Administration or Bybee fascist or Nazi. But when reading the Bybee memo (I have read only one of the Bradbury memos), you feel unclean – as if you were reading something that might be contagious. What in God’s name got into these people? You wonder what the hell the gentleman was thinking when he wrote it.
Did he grasp the fact that he was in the process of justifying the deliberate infliction of pain on another human being? I suppose lawyers can do just about anything – defending Bin Laden in an American court if it comes to that – but Bybee, like a good little bureaucrat, followed orders issued by his superiors and what emerged from his mind and pen puts a terrible coda on Bush era policies that broke American and international law.
President Obama, required by law, released these memos and then appropriately gave a pass to the men and women who operated under their legal guidelines. Overall, he is showing a sensitivity to the issues that most of us on the right are not giving him much credit for.
He has not recommended prosection of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other high level Administration officials – yet. It could be he is waiting to see which way the political wind blows. It could be he is reluctant to distract the country from what he considers more important business. It could even be that he may wish to employ some of the same techniques against high value targets in the future and doesn’t want to close down any of his options.
I believe, like myself, he really doesn’t know how to proceed. Will there be war crimes trials? A special prosecutor? A blue ribbon, “non-partisan” truth commission? I doubt whether he even wants to make that decision which means he will leave it to the Democratic Congress. If so, I have little hope that anything useful will emerge from anything the rabid Bush haters, who spent 8 years undermining the policies of a Republican president, can come up with.
I am done writing trying to convince conservatives that I am right by arguing nits. I came to the conclusion that despite what I see as clear evidence of lawbreaking, others on the right sincerely believe otherwise. But if there are any conservatives out there reading this who are continuing to defend these actions by President Bush and his people but nevertheless feel troubled and unsure, I urge you to take a fresh look at the issues – if only to buttress your own defense.
There is no shame in changing your opinion if you expose yourself to new facts, new insights and look at the issue from a new perspective.
Rick Moran is Associate Editor of The American Thinker and Chicago Editor of Pajamas Media. His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.
27 Responses to “The Truth Will Set You Free (Guest Voice)”
I have a lot of respect for Rick for writing this great article.
It's tough to point out grave flaws in your team/friends/allies, but unmistakable evidence of those flaws can only rot your credibility, and more importantly, your soul.
Good Lord. They gave Rick Moran a set of keys to the joint. I'm running outside to look for horsemen in the sky. The end has surely drawn nigh.
I'm not in agreement on every point, but definitely in spirit. Well done, Rick.
And wow- Maguire's description of the analysis being 'client driven' and derived by backward reasoning from a preconceived decision is spot on. It's a concept I've had floating in my brain since this started to come out but he gave me the words to describe it.
Good Lord. They gave Rick Moran a set of keys to the joint.
LMAO!
It is just a guest point, though, Jazz. Don't get carried away- only the first seal has been broken.
“What in God’s name got into these people?”
Do you think it might have been the realization that there was a group of people who were willing to give up their lives in order to kill Americans?
Do you think that once this truth was established the thought of inflicting mild, temporary discomfort on terrorists in the process of extracting information that would save thousands of lives didn’t seem to rise to the level of Nazi torture?
Do your delicate sensibilities feel cleansed now that you have condemned the evil ones who must surely have devised the “Caterpillar Torture” as an amusement?
What in God’s name got into these people? Whatever it is, you better pray that it continues to get into the people that are tasked with protecting you. Your journey into self-examination and lap around the liberal world looking for approval shows the Jim Jeffords like courage the GOP has suffered under for past few years.
Next time there is an attack on the United States or US Troops, let's go burn the Constitution together. After all, we must abandon our laws and values to wage war. That's what we did when we faced Soviet nukes and before that Nazi submarines.
Nevermind that we've killed suspected terrorists inflicting “mild, temporary discomfort”, but what makes you so sure we've saved thousands of lives? Especially when all the proof points to torture yielding nothing but junk?
Come over to my place and I'll keep you awake for 10 days while slamming your head into a wall. You'll be pretty tired, so afterward I'll let you sleep in a tiny box full of insects.
These people weren't protecting us from anything. By engaging in torture we've stoked more hatred around the world, earned the distrust of allies and set a precedent for lawlessness.
Mr. West:
Mild? Good. I'm sure you'll volunteer to prove the efficacy of how “mild” it is to have your head bashed into a wall. Who knows? In your case, might do some good.
Jazz – does this mean I have to bookmark TMV now? Holy Christ, that means it will be in between “The Free Republic” and The Huffington Post.
Both will probably inch away hoping not to be contaminated.
“You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.” -O'Brien in “1984″
Next time there is an attack on the United States or US Troops, let's go burn the Constitution together. After all, we must abandon our laws and values to wage war. That's what we did when we faced Soviet nukes and before that Nazi submarines.
But that's true that we did abandon principles in those previous wars, Chris. The whole current dilemma is how we can stop doing that.
Good point CStanley. Although, at least we were previously heralded for our treatment of prisoners.
Chris,
I beg you to think.
Think about the unintended consequences of what you are saying. Now that the liberal standard of treatment has been established for unlawful enemy combatants (not POWs), what do you think the chances are of people being captured as opposed to killed on the battlefield?
Why would any opposing force to the U.S. now follow he Geneva Conventions, knowing that regardless of their actions, they will be treated with all the benefits (and in some cases more) as lawful POWs?
I can’t get mad at you for your views – you’re a liberal and can’t help it. My comment to Rick Moran was testy due to fact that he purports to be a conservative – so he shouldn’t be that stupid.
Rick,
You object to the word “mild” in my comment.
I object to your definition of the word “torture”. By defining torture down to the BDS hyped level common today, you have effectively denigrated the horror that people who were subjected to actual torture throughout the ages have suffered.
Are you saying that there is no difference between depriving someone of sleep or peeling their skin with a blowtorch and pliers? If given a choice, which “torture” would you choose?
You are in a medium that uses words. Perhaps you should give those words the respect and accurate use they deserve.
Probably just a side point, but did anyone else equate the proposed bug torture to the climactic scene in Orwell's 1984? The protagonist is subjected to the possibility of rats, his ultimate fear, being given access to his head.
The idea of customized torture tailor-made to an individual's personal fears really does represent a certain detached, workman like quality to the business of torture.
Although, at least we were previously heralded for our treatment of prisoners.
But couldn't that possibly be because no one knew the truth of it? A lot of the behavior of our elected officials and DOJ in these instances suggests to me that there's been a conspiracy of silence all along- and that these things we're now shocked at didn't seem beyond the pale at all to them.
jwest,
There is simply no excuse for torturing prisoners of any kind. You make it sound like it's something we must do. Leaving aside moral considerations, I challenge you to find evidence that we've gained something of value from torture. So far, every claim the Bush administration has made about intelligence gathered from torture has been debunked.
Also, I can hardly believe that you think torturing protects the Geneva Conventions.
“I challenge you to find evidence that we've gained something of value from torture.”
The CIA director testified under oath that our enhanced interrogation tactics yielded information that saved American lives.
And of course, torturing doesn’t protect the Geneva Conventions. Not granting Geneva Convention protections to those who are specifically excluded from those articles does protect the intent and integrity of the Conventions.
Eliminating torture has been a concerted effort for civilized countries for a long time, and the Genva Convention was the response to the atrocities committed by the Axis partners. Torture has been found in the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts. One of the reasons McCain is so honored is due in part for his experiences. At the same time, US and ARVN were responsible for prisoners being pushed out of helicopters on more than one occasion. I don't believe anyone was convicted for these acts.
The point I want to make is simple. If we, as part of the civilized world, wish to maintain moral integrity, I believe people must be held accountable for their baser actions. It's not always convenient or politically expedient, but the moral imperative out ways those concerns.
I said evidence, not vague assertions. And how come you switched the word torture for “enhanced interrogation”?
Not granting Geneva Convention protections to everyone is not the same as torturing every prisoner who doesn't meet the classification.
Are you arguing that the intent of the Conventions were to stigmatize warfare that didn't take place between armed conflict between “High Contracting Parties” and not to protect as many people as possible from inhumane treatment?
Are you arguing that the intent of the Conventions were to stigmatize warfare that didn't take place between armed conflict between “High Contracting Parties” and not to protect as many people as possible from inhumane treatment?
I've always assumed that both were the goals.
CStanley,
That's probably true, but I don't think latter is compatible with torture as an acceptable means of attaining the former.
Chris,
If a CIA director testifying under oath is a “vague assertion” and your assumption that nothing of value was obtained by the questioning from hearsay from left-wing websites, I can’t argue it any further.
I switched the word “torture” to enhanced interrogation because I value accuracy and the English language. Just as I said to Rick Moran, lumping the college hazing techniques listed in the memos to the vile acts of actual torture is a linguistic crime. I know you would like to refer to sitting in an uncomfortable position as torture for the shock value, but if you truly get honest, it’s not the same as having your eyes gouged out, now is it?
Not granting Geneva Convention protections to unlawful enemy combatants means that people caught waging war who are not part of an organized, state sponsored military and who do not wear an identifying uniform can be summarily executed. I guess if a civilized country can do that, they would certainly be applauded for simply slapping the offender around as an alternative.
As far as the intent of the Conventions, they were designed to insure (among other things) that people waging war were not incentivised to hide in civilian populations, thus placing non-combatants in greater danger. From the dawn of warfare, combatants who are not identifiable by being in a uniform have been considered spies or saboteurs, and were immediately executed.
By granting illegal enemy combatants the same or better status as honorable soldiers fighting under the guidelines of the Conventions, you would be making it impossible to discern between civilians and terrorists thus placing the general population at increased risk.
Well, I’m sure Olberman, Maddow and Mathews have their booking agent on the phone with Mr. Richard Moran.
What good sport it will be to have someone with a website entitled “Right Wing Nuthouse” as their new convert. Perhaps he can even join in with some “teabagging” jokes.
For MSNBC.
Oh, Richard. It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world.
But for MSNBC?
Chris, if there's a way to square the circle I think we should do it, but I agree with some of the points that jwest is making, particularly:
As far as the intent of the Conventions, they were designed to insure (among other things) that people waging war were not incentivised to hide in civilian populations, thus placing non-combatants in greater danger. From the dawn of warfare, combatants who are not identifiable by being in a uniform have been considered spies or saboteurs, and were immediately executed.
By granting illegal enemy combatants the same or better status as honorable soldiers fighting under the guidelines of the Conventions, you would be making it impossible to discern between civilians and terrorists thus placing the general population at increased risk.
To me, the only way to maximize both goals that you stated earlier would be for the conventions to continue to not guarantee certain rights to combatants that don't meet the definitions of legal fighters but then countries should voluntarily go farther in extending completely humane treatment to captives. I'd even go so far as to say no hostile treatment at all- but then I'd also agree with the other side of the debate that we shouldn't necessarily broadcast that we never do ANYTHING that would be the slightest bit harsh. We can maintain internal standards that are high, but then continue to keep them guessing basically- I don't see the harm in that (other than of course that some will assume the worst, but that will happen regardless.)
It is a “vague assertion” because he offered up no verifiable evidence. The burden of proof is on them, they're the ones supporting torture not me.
That's a familiar tactic from torture apologists. Bring up one isolated technique and make it sound like a minor discomfort. If I made you sit with your back hunched over for an entire week, you would be in extreme pain. Ask John McCain about that.
The Geneva Convention argument is nothing but a distraction because U.S. law created in the aftermath of the UN Convention Against Torture does not require any special classification of the victim for torture to be illegal. We could be talking about torturing Osama Bin Laden on death row, it doesn't matter. It's illegal.
jwest I hope you and your family, and all our service personnel are forever spared the horrors we inflicted on many innocent people. You do know some of them died at our hands, right? Even the guilty should not drive us from our ethical and moral standards. I see that yours have not been violated.
I have been disappointed to see who here excuses, justifies and hence condones and supports these reprehensible practices; practices we have long condemned others for and fought hard to rid the world of.
If someday the Chinese Army were to invade the United States, and if some American, having some military training and experience some twenty odd years earlier, were to set up an ambush and kill a bunch of Chinese soldiers and civilians, would that person be an illegal enemy combatant? If some Canadian crossed into the US to set up an ambush and kill a bunch of Chinese soldiers and civilians, would that person be an illegal enemy combatant? And if some Mexican did the same, would he also be an illegal enemy combatant?
Someone said:
“If a CIA director testifying under oath is a “vague assertion”…”
There is probably no more sacred oath than the oath the president of the United States takes upon assuming office.
If such oath turns out to be worthless when it comes to telling the truth to the American people on matters of war and peace, torture, etc., etc., why isn't within the realm of possibilities that the word of a CIA director testifying under oath could be a “vague assertion” or worse.?
Indeed, since the CIA director at the time was in league with the torturers, his assertions are worth nothing. Of COURSE he said the torture produced useful results. Now I want a security-cleared judge or hey, why not the President, to look into those claims. Even if we did squeeze something out of a baddie, it doesn't justify torturing, raping and killing innocents.