Hearing is believing: The torture memos.
I'm not much more than a semi-fan of John Hockenberry's The Takeaway. It's a bit too rushed, a bit too sarcastic, and a bit too New York for my taste: but the theme music does serve to jar me awake at 6:00 weekday mornings, and today I heard something which reminded me once again about the power of the spoken word. I have not read all four memos. I have read my way through the longest one-looking at the footnotes, even. I developed an intellectual comprehension of the subject and arguments therein. But understanding didn't entirely occur until I heard Hockenberry's commentary on this morning's show. It is devastating: one of the most powerful spoken pieces I've ever heard. The tone, the nuance, the background music are as close to perfect as I can imagine anything of this sort being. John Winthrop wrote about the different between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge". This short work brought the knowledge from my head and incorporated it into my heart. I understand better than ever the venality of the Bush administration. Please do listen to the segment, test your reaction against mine.
I think it appropriate, no, necessary, to bring Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury before investigative committees of both the House of Representatives and Senate to answer for what they wrote: to defend it not with footnotes and endless legalese, but as if their own humanity was at stake. I would applaud bringing them to justice as the next logical step.
Finally, I would love to know if there was at least one operative, with or without knowledge of the memos, who stood on his or her honor and said, "no, I will not do this!". I'd love to see this person get the Freedom Medal at the same time the names of Bybee and Bradbury (and those who ordered these memos written as they were written) receive the ignominy due them.
I think it appropriate, no, necessary, to bring Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury before investigative committees of both the House of Representatives and Senate to answer for what they wrote: to defend it not with footnotes and endless legalese, but as if their own humanity was at stake. I would applaud bringing them to justice as the next logical step.
Finally, I would love to know if there was at least one operative, with or without knowledge of the memos, who stood on his or her honor and said, "no, I will not do this!". I'd love to see this person get the Freedom Medal at the same time the names of Bybee and Bradbury (and those who ordered these memos written as they were written) receive the ignominy due them.
Advertisement
I concur, powerful 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
Obama is wrong. There should be, NEED to be prosecutions. Now.
April 17, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it's a powerful piece. I just don't know if I'm more discouraged and depressed or more angry after listening to it.
The idea of looking for and rewarding some person who stood up against this warped idea of what pain is, let alone what torture is, definitely appeals. I wonder if there actually was anybody in that administration who lived in the reality-based world.
April 17, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There do need to be prosecutions, but they have to start with the top. If we can't indict Cheney, why attack those who thought they were defending the US? Without completely destroying the rationale, the legal cover, we can't prosecute the CIA officers.
April 17, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine what the buried videos showed?
Jane Mayer at TPMCafe:
“But I have personally interviewed CIA officers who have said they refused to partake in the "enhanced interrogation" program because they feared that eventually it would lead to criminal charges.”
I’ve read that FBI agents, in particular, declined joining in the fun. And then there were many military lawyers and psychologists involved who were speaking out against it.
Do any of the memos (Woo's, Addington's, etc.) really establish justification or are they an obvious CYA paper trail? If the latter, then those involved are guiltier than if "just following orders."
As Chris Floyd points out, at the end of one of the Bradberry memos, he basically admits that the legal justifications probably would not hold up, but doesn’t expect any judicial proceedings against anyone.
April 17, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"admits that the legal justifications probably would not hold up"
That's like a stock broker encouraging you to buy a touted stock, and adding, "BTW, I'm just blowing smoke here, it's all at your own risk."
Help say Bye-bye to Bybee
March 6, 2009, 2:08PM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/03/help-say-bye-bye-to-bybee.php
April 17, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch, eds. Isn't it strange that the Spanish justice system was poised to prosecute Bybee, Addington, Woo, et al. while the US was "leaving the past behind"?
Stranger still: on the very day that the CIA is immunized (effectively breaking the chain that would lead up to the likes of Bybee) the Spanish AG completely reverses direction and declines to continue the prosecution on the grounds that it should be the purview of the US?
April 17, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had not caught the news from Spain.
Seems like something sneaky is going on here, in this country.
April 18, 2009 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spanish justice system is different from ours. Ours is based on a prosecutorial decision. Spain follows Roman law, where the Judge decides if a case goes forward. Latest is the Judge, Garzon, decided it will be placed in line to be assigned to a Judge. There are, I think, 6 Judges. So he could get the case or not. That's the latest, from the 18 of this month.
April 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update on Spain’s case, Thera. It seems in limbo right now. The AG recommended it not go forward and reports were that it was all but dead. But the judge has decided to leave open the question of prosecution for now, so no telling. it's still suspect that the prosecutor reversed his earlier intentions.
It’s true that Prosecutors have discretion in the US, but the Geneva Conventions and CAT seem to remove that discretion in this type of case.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
April 19, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is anything the bureaucracy is full of it is endless, repetitive training on whatever laws apply to what you do. You don't become a high officer in the CIA without having been thoroughly schooled on what laws apply to what foreign and domestic. These aren't weekend warriors deployed to do jobs they weren't trained to do. They knew the rule of law far better than the idiot who was is in the White House.
I can understand how in the heat of the fear and emotion after 9/11 some might break the law. I can even forgive them for breaking it. I wouldn't punish them severely. I might pardon them if I had the power. But I would hold them accountable first.
April 18, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what they did was mostly a matter of trying to define the difference between legal abuse of prisoners and illegal abuse of prisoners, and pushing that line into gray areas.
Specifically, if interrogation is acceptable within bounds, what are the limits and are they fixed or do they depend on circumstances or context? When is a bright light okay, but food deprivation not? Is psychological abuse okay but not physical abuse? Where is the line between abuse and good practice, never mind the question of its legality?
The fact that the abuse included a knowing and deliberate creation of conditions of the physiologically based perception of drowning (waterboarding) makes the conduct just as reprehensible as holding someone's head under water for long periods of time in an effort to intimidate that person.
The idea that cutting off fingers etc. is some kind of standard for what constitutes abuse, this is a simply ludicrous fiction.
April 18, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel there are situations that would mitigate the actions of many involved, and of course, the buck doesn't stop until it reaches the top. But, it is for courts to decide ads they do with any crime.
Most of the conventions against torture prescribe humane treatment of prisoners. Inentional physical abuse of is plainly prohibited. Medical personnel are only to be used to treat detainees, not to design and oversee psychological torment. Sleep and sensory deprivation or abusive manipulations of a prisoner’s environment are barred. The fact that those involved were so worried and went to such extremes (like constant memos and“legal opinions”) to justify the torture would seem to belie innocence here, but again, most wrongdoing leads up the chain of command.
Still, months ago a starving, jobless, homeless man walked into a bank with finger in pocket and told the teller to give him money. She handed him a stack of hundreds and he took only one. The next day he returned to the bank to return the money and apologize, explaining he was just hungry but "my mother didn't raise me that way." He was promptly arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
There were dozens, perhaps a hundred, of detainees, many innocent in the first place who have died under interrogation. I’d be hard pressed to explain our system of justice to that homeless man.
April 19, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse the typos. Also, the homeless man in Shreveport, Roy Brown, was also trying to get into detox, and he went to the police station the next day not the bank (been a while since I read this story).
April 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual for me. Who's John Hockenberry?
April 18, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A very well known public radio reporter. He was on morning edition/evening edition on NPR for many years.
April 18, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The John Hockenberry with whom I am "acquainted" is a fabulous reporter who, by the way has been in a wheelchair since 1976. Edgy, funny, self assured, he is a fine writer above all. His memoir is called "Moving Violations," pub. by Hyperion in 1995.
His current radio piece on torture is as Mike described it, particularly the banal and chilling closing music.
Mike's post is a fine contribution to the discussions here at TPM Cafe.
April 19, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you wholeheartedly Mike, but for those who clearly understand the dimensions and implications of the crimes committed, and who want the law to be enforced and the criminals brought to justice there is a serious problem. The problem is the moral entropy and indifference of the United States. And I include both the citizenry and the leadership in this. In my opinion, for many (not al), the torture "issue" as it were falls into one of two categories.
The first category is "just another story on tv" that has no more grip on the public than an episode of CSI. It is a remote and abstract thing that doesn't really penetrate the consciousness as being real and happening in a real way, let alone the conscience of these people who consume news like this in the same manner as they consume the "news" on Entertainment Tonight." It just isn't a reality for these people and thus there is no moral or other motivation to see something "done" about this. Most of this category of folk do not oppose doing something about the crimes that took place, they just don't care enough to take an active interest or to even have strong feelings about it one way or the other. They are far more concerned about who will be eliminated on this week's episode of "The Biggest Loser" because they "know" the people involved and vicariously care about them because they have been made "real" to the viewers over the course of the programming season. The victims of officially sanctioned US torture are not "real" in the same sense as the Biggest Loser contestants and therefore, the crimes committed against them, the suffering, the abuse and inhumanity to which we subjected them just don't register as being very important.
The second, and perhaps more pernicious category, are those who actually do care about this sort of thing but because it is remote, and the pain, suffering, etc... is not something that impacts them, they are perfectly willing to consider the problem in terms of "politics" and the manuevering and gamesmanship that typically occurs on the part of decisionmakers in the political arena. These folks know better, but are in many ways simply intellectually callous and have distanced themselves morally and emotionally from the kind of outrage and horror they might express if they actually witnessed the crimes being committed or if the victims were people they themselves knew or could coneive themselves as knowing. These folks know what is right and what ought to be done but rationalize cooperation with evil or looking the other way as Obama is doing as being a "smart" political move because it avoids confronting the criminal element and their tiny band of vocal supporters and they also see it as an "acceptable compromise" that is more proof of the President's deft political hand. One wonders if their own brother or father was waterboarded if they could so casually dismiss letting the torturers and those ordered the torture go free because it would avoid some messy politics in the capitol?
The issue is not a political issue at all. It is a criminal issue and considering the serious nature of the crimes it is a moral issue. This is a test of the moral character of our nation and our leaders. Thus far, while releasing the memos was a good thing, the nation and it's leaders are failing the test. It is not too late to turn things around and make sure that the criminals are made to answer for their crimes, but there is no chance of that happening unless and until enough citizens break out of the moral entropy and indifference that is strangling the nation's capacity to have the courage to do what is right. Only when citizens demonstrate they will not be lulled into a moral coma by the mundane and bureaucratic justification of war crimes and demand that the criminals be brought to justice will America be able to meet this moral test.
A famous quote of Jefferson's comes to my mind with respect to this issue:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is indeed, just."
April 18, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pathetic how we've become the Twitter Nation. The Founders thought long term. They understood how long the battle had been for the rule of law. I don't care what institution you're talking about today, none of them can think past the next Tweet. If we don't hold people accountable NOW when do they think we ever will? They think evil takes a holiday? I must still be too Catholic. That's not what the good nuns taught me. "Cheney" will be back and all we're doing is clearing his path. The road to Hell is paved with good (and craven) intentions.
April 18, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hallelujah Blue!
April 18, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos oleeb and bluebell!
April 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink