“Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.” ~Michael Hayden and Michael B. Mukasey in the Washington Post’s editorial response to the release of the Bush torture memos.
There is something about this excerpt – and the larger Post editorial – that is so strikingly backwards; at once morally, logically, and practically, that one can almost visualize the mental and moral gymnastics that went into penning it. First of all, the “people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl” are not necessarily the same people who we have been torturing; nor are we torturing in order to deter terrorists. At least theoretically, torture was intended to elicit information – not to exact vengeance.
Calling for an end to torture, and seeking to hold those responsible accountable (we can hope) for their crimes is in no way intended to “shame” the terrorists into giving up violence. On the contrary, we are once again renewing our belief in a higher moral standard than our enemies. What could possibly be more devastating to our freedom in this asymmetrical fight than losing our most deeply held values – our honor and dignity and sense of justice? What could be a worse blow to our liberty?
Beyond this, we have already incurred the contempt of our enemies. Nothing will change that fact, including standing up for what is right and decent. Contempt is not something that should worry us when it comes from the likes of al Qaeda. Contempt is something we can live with in an enemy. Can we live with the dishonor that comes from abusing and abandoning the very liberty and justice we hold so dear? Can we so scorn our own beliefs and, in the end, feel anything but contempt for ourselves? These was not Operation Harmless Squishy Thing anymore than torture is something funny to joke about. When you encounter someone joking about it, it’s a safe bet that you’ve left the realm of reasonable discussion behind.
If the only thing Hayden and Mukasey can discern in all of this is faux outrage and a pretty little package for the media, it is because they have already sacrificed their higher ideals for the specter of national security dogmatism. When the security of a nation is its government’s only consideration – above the liberty and humanity of its citizens – then there is little reason to avoid the police state, because a police state will manage security with deadly efficiency. Democracy is a messy affair, and at times it comes with trade-offs. At times liberty must come at the cost of our total security, which is a pipedream to begin with. Liberty was always the point, wasn’t it? Not torture, not warrantless wiretaps. This is not the vision of America I was taught to believe in. Obama made the right choice in revealing these documents, and now we will see if out of mere words real actions can take shape.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
I think the need to criminally prosecute those who authorized and ordered torture (as well as illegal surveillance) is absolute and non-negotiable (and, as I wrote earlier today, in the case of torture, criminal investigations are legally compelled). A collective refusal to prosecute the grotesque war crimes that we know our Government committed is to indict all of us in those crimes, to make us complict in their commission.
Others have made similar arguments, and still others disagree. I think the only course is the course of justice, even if we fail to convict, as the Anonymous Liberal suggests we will. You should at the very least sign this petition and put pressure on your elected representatives to see that a truth comission is formed; that the guilty may face justice and its consequences, and our national honor somehow restored. Otherwise, as Greenwald notes, we all become complicit in these crimes.
Enough with the liberty and justice we hold so dear, our national honor and dignity! I get it: you’re a morally righteous individual. That point is taken (over and over and over again). Why belabor the point? If you keep this up, I’m going to put you down as some kind of schoolmarmish moral scold.
I’m pretty sure that there will be no “truth commission.” That’s because these practices have gone on under both Republican and Democratic administrations for a long time and in the case of the Bush administration, Congress was fully informed as things went along and raised no objections at all. Like Scheuer said:
The more potent objection to releasing the memos is that they give our practices away to the enemy and make it much more difficult for our intelligence operatives to do their jobs.
Another reason is
Instead of releasing these incendiary memos to no purpose at all, justice and national security would have been served had Obama called for a thorough revision of our legal framework so as to make it adequate to the challenges that asymmetric warfare poses. Then let sleeping dogs lie.Report
I make no pretenses about my own righteousness, Roque. I simply find torturing other human beings an abhorrent practice. Where else have I talked about national honor and dignity and liberty and all that? Link me. If I have it’s been one of my more infrequent topics.
I find it particularly odd that you would find the release of these documents so ill-advised. Can’t one be both pro-intervention as you are, a hawk, pro-Israel, etc. etc. and still be opposed to these sorts of self-defeating tactics?
Personally I think that these torture tactics actually weaken our ability to fight the terrorists; weaken our ability to bring justice to our enemies; and provide faulty information to our intelligence agencies.
And just because these practices may or may not have gone on before does not mean that it is right they did.Report
If you keep this up, I’m going to put you down as some kind of schoolmarmish moral scold.
Is that how you categorize those of us who feel disgust at American condoned torture tactics? We’re just scolds?
I’m not holier than thou, nor do I pretend to be. I’m a sinner and a fool much of the time; that doesn’t mean that I’m just going to shrug off the torture of other human beings at the hands of my government.Report
I never said I supported torture. Like you say, link me! And don’t put words in my mouth.
I may agree with you (or not) about torture weakening our ability, etc etc. My point is that the release of the memos also weakens it. A little moral ambiguity there for you, if you’re interested. Well… it isn’t my point. It’s the point of the comments I linked to. I say they have a good point. That’s all.
I was not condoning these practices by quoting Scheuer. I was only trying to show why the release of the memos is a show.
If you really thought you were a sinner and a fool, you would never have said that you were a sinner and a fool. That’s how these things work.Report
Nonsense – admitting my own humanity – wait a minute – so you’re saying I’m neither sinner nor fool? Am I supposed to argue this now….?
I’m confused…
😉Report
Sorry about that. I shouldn’t have gone there since it’s about your religious beliefs. I apologize.Report
It’s all good, Roque. Point is, I don’t think I’m better than anybody else. I’m just as much a weak and human creature. But that doesn’t mean I put my opinions on the shelf, or don’t get pissed off when I see torture, or terrorism, or any number of other things. It’s just worse when it’s your side making the mistake.Report
The more potent objection to releasing the memos is that they give our practices away to the enemy and make it much more difficult for our intelligence operatives to do their jobs
As a wise man once tweeted, I for one feel much less safe now that Al Qaeda will be able to train to withstand our brilliant “bug in the box” technique.Report
Since we’re discontinuing these methods, I fail to see how it matters if the bad guys know our techniques.Report
With regard to “techniques” and timelines, Seton Hall University Law School has a document archive and ongoing project in which they have analyzed over 100,000 documents from the Department of Defense regarding Guantanamo and the treatment of detainees. On April 1, 2009 they released a report entitled:
TORTURE: WHO KNEW: An Analysis of the FBI and Department of Defense Reactions to Harsh Interrogation Methods at Guantánamo, the Center’s 13th Guantánamo Report is based, like all preceding Center reports, entirely upon the careful study of over 100,000 pages of the government’s own documents, most of which were procured through Freedom of Information Act suits.
Among the report findings:
FBI field agents repeatedly reported detainee abuses during interrogation by DoD interrogators between 2002 and mid-2004:
FBI personnel stationed at GTMO submitted a series of unsolicited reports describing at least 118 improper interrogation techniques: physical harm to the genitals–to a degree punishable by life imprisonment as sexual assault under military law; forced viewings of homosexual pornography; denial of food and water; disorientation techniques such as sleep deprivation; and religious abuse such as forced “satanic baptisms.”
FBI agents reported at least 20 times that these interrogation techniques produced unreliable intelligence, at least 8 times the methods were counterproductive, and at least 6 times the information extracted through the use of abusive techniques was likely to be inadmissible in court.
Note the dates of the abuse 2002-2004, prior to the writing of these memos.
These were written after the fact to provide cover for illegal acts.Report