« What Don't Corporate Executives Understand About "Thou Shalt Not Steal?" | Home | Elephants Fly: Jewish Organization Welcomes Bibi to US With Full Page New York Times Ad Supporting....Obama »
The Latest Excuse for Torture
As the usual rationalizations for U.S. torture (it works, it's not so bad, we didn't do it anyway) have come under increasing attack in recent days, a relatively new defense has emerged, from GOP members of congress, columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fox News' Jim Angle, and many others: Waterboarding can't be torture because we used it on "thousands" of our own troops as part of their training!
Of course, some have questioned the degree of waterboarding (was it the lite version?) and, of course, none of the military personnel were subjected to it 83 times. But the argument remains out there.
This week, I received a letter from a woman from Florida, mother of a young Marine, who has corresponded with me before about her military background and her son joining up, at Editor & Publisher. Her latest letter was extremely disturbing and also extremely relevant to the latest torture excuse. Here is it is, with her name omitted for obvious reasons.
* Greg Mitchell's latest book is Why Obama Won. His previous book on Iraq and the media was So Wrong for So Long.
At Twitter: GregMitch
Of course, some have questioned the degree of waterboarding (was it the lite version?) and, of course, none of the military personnel were subjected to it 83 times. But the argument remains out there.
This week, I received a letter from a woman from Florida, mother of a young Marine, who has corresponded with me before about her military background and her son joining up, at Editor & Publisher. Her latest letter was extremely disturbing and also extremely relevant to the latest torture excuse. Here is it is, with her name omitted for obvious reasons.
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
I have been so profoundly upset for the last few days that I can hardly express it, so I decided to write to you again. My son is ok physically, thank God, but what was done to him by his own leaders sickens me beyond belief.
My son was in a field that required that he attend SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school. He was trained as a member of a flight crew that could potentially go behind enemy lines, so SERE was required. I'm a veteran, I thought I had an idea of what was ahead for him, so I gave him a maternal pep talk and told him that it would be very hard but these people were on his side and were trying to prepare him for all possibilities and this would help make him prepared and tough.
I didn't know how naïve my encouragement was. I thought they would teach him how to escape, and how to survive. I had no idea that it would be a sadistic exercise in dehumanizing and terrifying him. He was 19 at the time. I am sickened by this, and outraged.
My 19 year old son was water boarded, among other despicable things, and I had encouraged him to succeed at SERE. They did more to him that he has yet to explain to me, one thing that went on long enough for him to start hallucinating and to think he was dying....
Now we all have found that the two men who came up with this program were using my son and everyone else who went through SERE as guinea pigs for their sick, sadistic torture program. Then they sold their torture program to the sadists in the Bush Administration and became overpaid military contractors who spread this poison throughout our military.
My son is not reenlisting. He is getting out soon. He has been depressed for a long time now and can't wait to get out.
This is why I'm writing to you: Yesterday on TV I saw some Republican mouthpiece, some ex-Cheney aide, who has never worn a uniform and has NO idea what the hell he is talking about, say that we never tortured anyone because we did it to our own troops and they volunteered to serve; therefore it isn't torture. His statement was allowed to stand unchallenged.
My son did NOT volunteer to be tortured. He was NOT told what would be done to him at SERE. He was told he would be taught to survive. Instead he was tortured, humiliated, degraded, shamed, and told to keep quiet about it. How in God's name would that prepare any of our troops to survive capture? It won't. It will only make them break quicker in the hopes of not having to go through more torture.
Who will speak up for my son and the others like him who joined the military to serve and who were subjected to sadistic torture, not by the enemy, but by the war criminals ostensibly on our side? These people, Cheney and his talking heads, everyone of them chicken hawks who avoided serving, should NOT be allowed to use torturing our troops as rationalization for their crimes.
There is NO excuse for this. People need to go to jail for this, and I don't mean the Lyndie Englunds and other low-ranking troops who were led into this. I mean the people who ordered it at the top. The people who are still trying to justify their crimes and are now having their mouthpieces use my son and others who were tortured as their cover. And for what? So the sadists who came up with this, and they are sadists, can keep themselves out of trouble? They all stood by silently, including Cheney, while lower-ranking troops went to prison for the evil they ordered done. Now they want to use my son's torture as their rationalization? No!
This must NOT be allowed to stand unchallenged.
I can't stand feeling so helpless. I WANT A VOICE. I want to confront those evil people who are still selling this torture as if it were our only defense against terrorists, and who now are attempting to use our troops to defend their indefensible, morally corrupt, war crimes.
My son was not given a choice, he was not made aware of what would be done to him, he was ordered not to talk about it. He was tortured - by sadists, for bigger sadists.
Who will stand up to those responsible for this?
* Greg Mitchell's latest book is Why Obama Won. His previous book on Iraq and the media was So Wrong for So Long.
At Twitter: GregMitch
Advertisement
Amazing how this "genuine" letter tries to make sure that as many points that make up the legal definition of torture as possible are covered.
IF any of this is true, then Greg Mitchell is exploiting his relationship with this mother for political purposes.
Instead, he should have adivsed and helped her find a lawyer and file legal challenge against the Government as soon as possible.
Shameful.
May 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, are you clueless, cynical and hard-hearted all as one.
First, governments in general, and especially the feds, enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits on a wide variety of issues. One of broadest possessions of immunity is over military issues. So, the "sue" idea is basically a non-starter.
Second, you seem to be indicating this is a made-up letter. Got proof?
Third, unless he's lying about that, Mitchell says he has exchanged correspondence with this woman before.
May 15, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent reply!
May 15, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps in your alternative universe the current active litigation over torture is not covered by the media.
Here in this country, the government is a defendant.
This litigation has already forced the President to release torture memos. Next step (after his Muslim speech), his "appeal" will fail and he will be forced to release photos of prisoner abuse.
I understand that it's nothing but a happy happy coincidence that this letter surfaced "this week", precisely when it's so useful and necessary to "debunk" new torture rationale.
And if Mitchell did indeed correspond with this woman before and haven't gotten her a lawyer yet, he's either related to Pelosi or collecting stories for his new book.
May 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
which torture memos have the obama administration been forced to release? i hope you don't mean that the popular desire to know what happened qualifies as force, since that would be a pretty weak definition of force when there are real lawsuits going on to compel further revelations of the behavior that has been conducted in our name.
May 16, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The letter obviously surfaced this week because the matter of how much and when, and for what reasons your heroes tortured is kind of in the news.
But no, I forgot that it is Republican faith that anyone who does not toe your line is delusional, politically motivated, and in some way -- pick 'em, you've always got some mental or moral flaw to ascribe to your foes -- foul and less than human.
Your political sadism used to sell. It no longer does, because it curdles your soul to exist in that state of mind.
May 18, 2009 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between the government being sued for damages (from which it is generally protected under the concept of sovereign immunity) and the government being sued to enforce compliance with the law/constitution.
May 18, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no proof that the letter is real. Why would he make it up? Maybe to sell more of his books.
May 16, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I have strong opinions about torture. Can you suggest a way that I might be affective in getting my opinions heard and acted upon other than presenting my opinions to my representatives in the hope that they will feel the political necessity of acting on them and also know that they have my political support if they do. The one other thing I know to do is speak to my fellow citizens in the hope that some will share my opinions, or at least my outrage, and act politically as well.
Is acting politically not our duty as citizens. What the hell else can I do. Acting to stop torture and bring justice is a huge concern to me and politics is the only way I know of to try to affect that outcome.
If I have evidence that scumbags in the past used torture I will try to make them pay a political price for it. Why shouldn't I, or anyone else, do so? I feel we should be ashamed not to.
May 15, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have strong opinions about torture too, and I'm pretty certain yours and mine are similar.
However, I also have strong opinions about political parties settling scores using any issue or topic at hand, however serious. And I have a serious concern that the current torture debate has already turned into Terri Schiavo 2.0
I do not believe that any action to stop torture can be successful if it's partisan.
If your passion is ending torture (as opposed to prosecuting an opposition party) then you have the options like donating to ACLU who have current and hopefully future legal action against torture.
If your congressional representative doesn't listen, you can always vote for someone else.
Let's start citizen's initiative (signatures, tea parties, protests in front of Congress, whatever) to force the truth commission.
What do you think?
May 15, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, it is interesting that you consistently state your opinion to let the Republicans and Bush, the Decider, off the hook for the torture that was perpetrated during the 8 years of his administration by insisting doing so is partisan politics.
Either you hold the delusional opinion that almost everyone in Congress during the last 8 years should go on torture trial or you are an apologist for those who actually initiated the policy.
May 15, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply think that there are enough republicans (and conservatives in general) who think that torture is wrong.
Your point (and bold letters) are about punishing Bush first, stopping torture second. For me it's the other way around.
And by the way, I voted against him twice and against his father twice too, if that makes any difference.
May 15, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney doesn't think torture is wrong, he is a Republican.
Cheney is going on every national TV show he can to defend torture and he says it saves lives, and that Obama is risking American lives in 'revealing techniques' and the Republican/Fox echo chamber back him up.
Pelosi is not defending torture.
May 15, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, any republican is guilty by association?
If you want to stick to partisan guns, it's fine by me. Frankly, I didn't expect anything else.
May 15, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect anything else from you Lalo.
What I stated are facts. Cheney is a Republican, he was nominated twice for Vice-president by the Republican Party. He still speaks for the Republican Party.
lalo, you seem unable to find Republicans responsible for acts they approved, committed and still publicly defend, carried out on their orders and in their administration.
May 15, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no issue with your facts. I have an issue with your clear wish to prosecute opposition first, crime second. Your logic of republicans = torture lovers by definition is dishonest because it is at heart a political calculation.
To use your analogy, since Nazis were all German, all Germans are Nazis.
As I said before, I want a truth commission, not a political burning at the stake.
May 15, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analogy with the Nazis. Noble's use of broad stereotypes is very disappointing.
May 16, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo said (referring to Noble)
There ya go again Lalo, putting words in people's
mouths. I looked at Noble's posts and didn't see 'a clear wish to prosecute the opposition first, crime second' anywhere. As a matter of fact, the word "prosecute" doesn't show up.
May 16, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
John - Noble said he's against the position that Bush should be let off the hook. I believe the opposite of letting him off the hook would be trying to prosecute him.
May 16, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClass,
Since he didn't mention prosecution, couldn't he have meant just get the truth out there? Getting the truth out doesn't mean mandatory prosecution.
May 17, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe - but you should just ask him directly rather than me. I somehow doubt it though. I think Noble would be very in favor of prosecution.
May 17, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here, Lalo, is that you are refusing to admit that the perpetrators are Republicans. Those who suggested torture, promoted torture, and construed legal opinions to provide torture were nominated, elected, appointed and instructed by Republicans.
It is because they suggested, promoted and defended torture that they are at the top of the list for prosecution. Their political views and party have nothing to do with it(unless you are suggesting that Republicans are inherently evil) and your attempts to suggest that is the cause are more laughable than annoying.
It is not our fault that apparent culpability for torture and torture policies is strongly correlated with Republicanism. We did not choose their actions for them - they did as autonomous actors.
You are asserting that there is a problem with investigating people who have a clear relationship to the crimes under scrutiny.
You furthermore suggest that rather than their actions, they are being scrutinized for their politics.
That's bullshit. They are being investigated for their acts and actions - if those arose from their political beliefs, mayhap we as a nation will have to address that.
But it has nothing to do with their partisan leanings, regardless of your attempts to create a linkage.
May 18, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
People who violate the law, especially a law as clear as the law against government officials torturing prisoners held in U.S. government custody, must be investigated and prosecuted if this is to remain a Constitutional nation operating under the Rule of Law. No government official can be permitted to act above retribution by the law for this nation to last.
Without such prosecutions, the Rule of Law becomes Locke's arbitrary rule of men, and the U.S. Constitution, our basic law, becomes a piece of scrap paper good only as a repository for those laws the rulers want to use to oppress their opponents.
There is no doubt at all from their behavior that the members of the Bush administration knew they were violating the law when they authorized torture. None. There is no excuse for protecting such criminals.
Did they think they were justified? Probably, but so does every bank robber who robs a bank and every sane killer who murders someone. Their belief that they were justified does not pass the smell test since they worked so hard to keep the justifications they concocted secret for so long. They knew they were violating the law.
If you are a patriotic American who loves and respects the Constitution and who has any comprehension of the importance of the Rule of Law to a democracy, you will press for investigation and prosecution of those criminals with the rest of us.
May 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rixhard,
I fine you $20.00 for introducing a none partisan and well thought out opinion.
May 16, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo said:
Lalo, I'm sure you're right, however the people you refer to aren't out front, its the right wing torture supporters who are all over the internet, on TV, and in the newspapers.
May 16, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry John, he doesn't deserve benefit of doubt.
He hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever, just bland assertions.
May 18, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you have to attack people and call them delusional? Why not just debate them without slinging mud?
May 16, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We know who won the Schiavo thing, don't we?
This seems to be a Republican meme: that all the debate about what to do with the fact that Cheney and Bush acted like little communist dictators, ordering people to commit war crimes, and defiling the great United States, is just spiteful politics. It is not. It is the definition of politics in a Republic. We do not torture, said Bush. Why would have make that claim? Why did they go to their bought-and-paid for lawyers for absurd legal opinions, if they didn't know that what they were doing was morally and legally wrong?
The necessity of bringing the torturers before the bar of justice is more than any politics. I think that conservatives and liberals alike must come together and condemn these practices, or else we will lose the Republic.
You, in fact, are the one being shamelessly partisan. You're just out here to protect Darth Cheney's ass.
May 18, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is why I have serious concerns about anyone who takes you seriously.
I'm not sure how much of your schtick is performance art, and how much is simple attempts to muddy up various issues, but I have long since given up trying to sort it out.
May 18, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that nominally intelligent people don't understand, or pretend not to understand, simple things?
The business about waterboarding and our own soldiers is simply that waterboarding 'per se' is not torture. And that is a sound if narrow point. "Guns don't murder, people do."
Waterboarding can be used as a torture technique. But that doesn't mean it's torture. How it is used is what determines whether it is 1) a demo, 2) a training tool, 3) an interrogation technique, or 4) torture. So soldiers in SERE training got #2, some detainees got #3, and maybe some got #4. Whether waterboarding is abusive but not torture in some cases is another simple issue. Maybe #3 was abusive, maybe not; sometimes maybe yes, other times maybe no.
Are such distinctions really beyond the grasp of the average adult pundit or poster?
Can we get some more adults in the house, please?
And this business about 83 or 183 (is that just a coincidence?)... really, get over it. If doing it once is torture, 83 is only relevant to the sentencing phase. If one time is not torture, where is the line and why are people hung up on these likely bogus numbers?
May 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds,
I think the number of times mentioned that some were waterboarded, 83 or 183, goes to show it doesn't work; if it did, there would be little need to waterboard after the first or second time.
A thought just occurred to me; what kind of mind would accept the idea that 'well, we watrerboarded this guy 182 times so far and got nothing, lets try again.' It reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity.
And considering the circumstances and the subject at hand, waterboarding those in our custody to elicit certain info, I have no doubt #4 in your example was the order of the day.
May 16, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't know if any cooperation was achieved after waterboarding #N
Yes, it could have been insanity, but I don't have enough detail to begin to judge that on this level, even if one believes the whole deal of Bush&Co was insane at another level. I suppose it's a good talking point even if it's a stretch.
My impression of the restrictions on the methods are that they were intended officially as faux-torture, mere softening up techniques. Whether this was done as a cover to hide sub rosa more violent but unofficially allowed uses, or whether some interrogations went further on their own, I don't know.
As faux-torture they stretch common police interrogation tactics, whether technically torture under the law or not. As faux-torture one would expect them not to be as effective as real torture in terms of eliciting confessions true or false.
"We are going to pretend to torture you, here goes" seems like a pretty strange way to proceed.
May 16, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction - TPM elided most of my first paragraph due to the "less than" character in the text. Here is the complete comment with the missing part bolded:
We don't know if any cooperation was achieved after waterboarding #N < 83. It is quite possible that N=2 produced some cooperation, whether faked or not. And then the cooperation wore off, so they went on with more. And maybe N=20-24 got more cooperation. And so on.
Yes, it could have been insanity, but I don't have enough detail to begin to judge that on this level, even if one believes the whole deal of Bush&Co was insane at another level. I suppose it's a good talking point even if it's a stretch.
My impression of the restrictions on the methods are that they were intended officially as faux-torture, mere softening up techniques. Whether this was done as a cover to hide sub rosa more violent but unofficially allowed uses, or whether some interrogations went further on their own, I don't know.
As faux-torture they stretch common police interrogation tactics, whether technically torture under the law or not. As faux-torture one would expect them not to be as effective as real torture in terms of eliciting confessions true or false.
"We are going to pretend to torture you, here goes" seems like a pretty strange way to proceed.
May 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry dude.
Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, and former Navy SEAL has explicitly stated that the training he underwent in SERE, specifically waterboarding, was torture. It may have been intended as part of his training, but he has stated categorically that it was torture.
You can't polish this particular turd.
May 18, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Greg's point, an effective rebuttal to the Faux/ Krauthammer nonsense is this: consensual intercourse with one's spouse is normal. Non-consensual intercourse is rape. That difference is obvious.
My God, how desperate they must be to scrounge for this as an argument!
May 18, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I think your initial premise is absolutely wrong. Waterboarding per se is torture, and I don't know of anyone who has experienced it that says otherwise, including members of the armed forces who have undergone SERE training.
May 18, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thread hijacked. Why respond to Lalo?
May 15, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo WAS the thread until I posted my comment above yours.
May 15, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I'm grateful to you.
May 16, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted some of this earlier at another site. For Republican apologists using the talking points claiming waterboarding and the EITs can't possibly be torture because we did it to expose thousands of US military personnel to enemy torture techniques, does that mean germ warfare isn't really germ warfare because we exposed MILLIONS of Americans to smallpox, polio, measles, etc., when we vaccinated them?
It's the same simple logic.
Somebody has to ask this of the next Republican apologist on TV who tries to use this dumb logic.
BTW, as Marine pilot I was waterboarded at SERE school and didn't enjoy it.
I consider it torture.
May 16, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting to the bottom of all that has happened and holding people accountable for all that 'should not have happened' and that which was 'illegal' is absolutely necessary for a multitude of reasons.
I would have to say about breaking down 'waterboarding to the 1, 2, 3, and 4th degree... seriously if 'waterboarding' as a practice is specifically stated as illegal according to the geneva conventions... what difference does it make.
My question now is how do we proceed and get to the bottom of things without compromising potential prosecutions? I don't want a 'commission' if they will do things that might compromise criminal investigations and prosecutions. I don't just want the story of what has happened. I want those responsible for breaking the law held accountable with appropriate consequences.
As we are starting to hear from some of those in the military, I am very concerned about how this has affected their moral.
I don't understand how Cheney can straight-faced claim that the things they chose to do made this country safer? It so false on so many levels.
May 17, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"if 'waterboarding' as a practice is specifically stated "
But it's not and there is the question of whether GC applies. Seriously.
It's true on many levels, too, btw.
May 17, 2009 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question isn't if it's torture or legal. This is only a side note to why they made memos to legalize all those practices after it was already being done.
Would Americans call it torture if we knew it was being done to U.S. military?
Does anyone really think Pelosi would not raise a red flag if she was actually told that this torture was being done?
May 17, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we have called it torture when other countries were doing it, and we have prosecuted the perpetrators in those other countries for war crimes.
May 18, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That excuse is absurd. The Army also put us all through the "gas chamber" in basic training. Although pretty awful we knew it was not lethal. That does not mean we condone going back to mustard just because we "gas our own troops during training'.
May 18, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a sad, sad thread. This mother's anguish is evident. It is despicable to suggest it is not a genuine letter absent any evidence. She has every right ot make her son's story public in an effort to make sure policy changes and stays changed.
Moreover, there is a bombshell accusation in her letter, though until there is evidence it will remain just an accusation. Namely, this veteran and other of a currently serving marine seems to have reason to believe that the contractors who corrupted our country's honor by introducing torture into interrogations may have actually influenced the SERE schools to be more harsh than perhaps necessary, in order to advance the use of such practices there as an excuse for the use of actual torture in the field.
This would be a bombshell development if it were true. It should be paid attention to if only to confirm that she is mistaken.
May 18, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just stop it. No excuse is okay for the mistreatment of prisoners and mistreating prisoners is against many treaties signed by our government making them the law of the land.
Whether we used waterboarding or any other form of torture is no longer in question. Prisoners in our detainment facilities were murdered and that makes all this other "is it torture" discussion moot. The DoD IG has said prisoners were murdered, so we've gone WAY beyond torture.
The political party of those who know, or knew what was happening is also a really silly discussion. We didn't ask Charlie Manson who he voted for did we?
Torture was done in MY name, and that's not okay by me. I want EVERYONE who knew investigated, tried and if found guilty put into the cell next to Charlie.
I did not spend 20 years in uniform to defend this type of behavior by ANYONE. It's just wrong and we all KNOW it.
May 18, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article。by the way,Upstairs is a sucker.
christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch london
August 20, 2010 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v p2v, centos iscsi target howto
March 30, 2011 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability system
April 28, 2011 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink