Most of the 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison when President Barack Obama took office were low-level fighters, with only 24 considered to be involved in plots against the United States, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

Read more.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that he supports President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and that he opposes the use of so-called “enhance interrogation techniques.” “I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention,” Petraeus said.

Today in an interview with Fox News, Petraeus reiterated his support for a “responsible closure” of Gitmo but went a bit further, noting that the prison has been harmful to the U.S.:

PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.

As Fox host Martha MacCallum went through most of the right-wing talking points on Gitmo and torture (Gitmo terrorists will “go free” in the U.S, torture works and should be used for the “ticking-time bomb” scenario) Petraeus knocked them down one-by-one. “I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values,” Petraeus repeatedly said.

Seemingly referring to Obama’s decision to release the Bush-era memos documenting President Bush’s torture program, MacCallum asked, “So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?” Again, Petraeus noted that such policies and techniques harm the U.S.

PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

I would also like to see Gitmo closed but since there isn’t a better place to put them as I have pointed out then we might as well keep them there. His words were “closed responsibly.” He didn’t give a timeline and had no alternative.
“…used by the enemy against us.” Doesn’t exactly make your point. I stated that it has been used against us as propaganda but in and off itself is not the cause of terrorism.
Also, I wouldn’t take legal advice from a general. No matter how much I respect that general. Most of the terrorists would be released if tried in civilian courts.

The Republicans put him on a pedestal then… how about now? His ever word was made nearly canonical by establishment elites.. no doubt that won’t be the case anymore!

Oh, and he also asserts that there have been terrorists who have used Gitmo as a rallying cry in their fight against our troops, something that an earlier commenter (I think Chris?) claimed was not factual.

As for POW’s, I guess my off-the-top-of-my-head reaction would be that my understanding of what constituted a POW in most other wars that we might compare to is quite different from what constitutes a ‘detainee’ in our [often] secret prison systems (and Guantanamo isn’t even one of the ’secret’ ones).

True. Former POW’s were uniformed people that mostly followed the rule of law and war while terrorists are not in uniform and have no respect for laws nor human life.

My — perhaps misinformed — understanding is that many of the people we detain are hunted down based on ‘informers’ and / or ‘purchased’ outright from bounty hunters.

You might be right. I don’t know of any official/credible report that indicates when, where, and why these people were detained. I think it is probably a mix of both “hunted down” people and people caught on the “battlefield.” The first I am skeptical of because of our history of bad intelligence and secrecy but for the second I am far more trusting and that is the group I have been trying to focus on for most of this blog. Too many people have tried to make this into a black and white discussion. I think there is a lot of gray.

One thing on which I’m figuring we would both agree is that it’s tragic that extremely poor decisions in that realm are producing so much distraction from what to do with detainees that we *do* have good reason to believe were involved with actual terrorism against our nation.

I agree. The problem is in any war or police action if you like mistakes will be made. But look at it this way. There is a lot of controversy of Bush’s failure to connect the dots leading up to 9/11. Some people argue the LIHOP & MIHOP both I believe are just crazy but that is another discussion. If we were attacked again by a person or a group we suspected for months of being involved in terrorism and didn’t do anything to stop them, the people would go crazy. It is a very tricky and complex issue that shouldn’t be taken lightly. That is a point I think needs serious consideration when criticizing our policies. I like to believe that most people in government enact security policy based on what they believe to be best and not for revenge or evil purposes. Hopefully I am not too naïve in this belief.

But that is just one more reason to speak out against the current system of ‘witch-hunts’ and interminable detention without due process.

I also think our current system has major flaws. I don’t think we’ll ever have a flawless system or a system that we cannot criticize for one reason or another. We do need to fix it especially in fighting terrorism but I’d rather hold a guilty terrorist forever than give them a chance to get released based on a technicality. Again the suspected and innocent people system needs to get fixed and immediately but I think it starts in the intelligence area and the decision to pick someone up in the beginning to prevent future mistakes.

I *do* believe that we would find less hate-based terror directed against our nation and that would be good.

You are probably right that they’ll be one reason piñata for the UN and other nations to complain about but I don’t think it will change the great majority of people’s minds about us. I think Gitmo is just an excuse to defend their hatred and aggressive actions against us and not the reason for it. You don’t see people going crazy about all the horrible things that China, Russia, N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and dozens of other countries that are doing far, far worse. A little consistency in the world community especially the UN would make me actually care what they think a bit more.

When we bomb areas full of innocent people to ’send a message’ or — worse yet, inadvertently or based on a system that favors ‘false informers’ — it does not strike me as the wisest, most moral, or even most pragmatic road we would want our nation’s foreign policy on . . .

To my knowledge this has never happened during the War on Terror. Mistakes have been made and innocent people have been killed which is always unfortunate but it is normal for war. Every veteran I have talked to about this would has told me that they go out of their way to not offend or hurt civilians. We should as you stated not rely so much on “false informers” but I can’t judge that because I am not privy to the intel provided and the history of that informer etc.

Your Civil War comment was right on. Andersonville is the most infamous of prisons during the war and the commander was actually found guilty and executed for his mistreatment of prisoners. He was the only one to be executed for this crime during the war. It still is controversial to many historians whether he was really guilty or not.

What to do with POW’s seems an age-old conundrum but I thought the US had signed to the ‘Geneva conventions’ as an acknowledgment of the difficulty of it all . . .

Yes but the Geneva Conventions specifically states that terrorists are not covered under the treaty. This does not mean we can treat them however we want but it does mean that there is a difference under international and US law between a POW and a terrorist.

It is another reason I hope we become more ‘picky and choosy’ as to when to actually undertake military action in the future than we seem to have been in the recent past.

I agree. A bit more prudence in DC about war and everything to be honest would be a great idea. Especially war.

I don’t know that the past treatment of POW’s has always been so Christian and exemplary either

Some of my only knowledge of ‘how a POW camp might work’ comes from recent reading on the U.S. Civil War. One book was describing some of the worst camps (on both sides): over-packed with human chattel, under-supported in terms of food and water and exposure to the elements, and sometimes headed by seriously sadistic men who responded to their difficult charge by encouraging the mass deaths of already sickened prisoners. The interesting thing for me was that here were these camps full of people not divided by ambiguities of ethnicity or religion [the type of thing that normally allows for easier dehumanization of a war-time enemy] They were clearly ‘sons and husbands’, ‘fathers and brothers’ who had been recruited to ‘defend their homeland’ and now found themselves dying of non-glorious causes like dysentery and exposure. Nevertheless, they had actually signed up to kill their captors and now they were just waiting for a hopeful mass prisoner exchange, the end of the war, or an ignoble death in the camp.

What to do with POW’s seems an age-old conundrum but I thought the US had signed to the ‘Geneva conventions’ as an acknowledgment of the difficulty of it all . . .

It is another reason I hope we become more ‘picky and choosy’ as to when to actually undertake military action in the future than we seem to have been in the recent past.

As many have noted here, your comments are appreciated and duly noted even if you sometimes seem under-represented on this particular subject.

As for POW’s, I guess my off-the-top-of-my-head reaction would be that my understanding of what constituted a POW in most other wars that we might compare to is quite different from what constitutes a ‘detainee’ in our [often] secret prison systems (and Guantanamo isn’t even one of the ‘secret’ ones). In the old days of visually allowing a group of combatants to surrender and then deciding what to do with them I think you had a much less complex moral dilemma. My — perhaps misinformed — understanding is that many of the people we detain are hunted down based on ‘informers’ and / or ‘purchased’ outright from bounty hunters. It isn’t often the kind of thing where there is a ‘high value’ suspect that we use those types of resources to find, either. It is more often the complete reverse where people come to us and suggest that we should recompense them for causing us to suspect people we never suspected before. That’s my major concern.

On the other hand, I don’t know that the past treatment of POW’s has always been so Christian and exemplary either. But I would say it is moot (even if we could find common ground on what to do with actual POW’s — which I figure we could) since the big picture is that we are talking about a documented ‘witch-hunt’ type collection system and that’s really the bigger problem.

One thing on which I’m figuring we would both agree is that it’s tragic that extremely poor decisions in that realm are producing so much distraction from what to do with detainees that we *do* have good reason to believe were involved with actual terrorism against our nation. But that is just one more reason to speak out against the current system of ‘witch-hunts’ and interminable detention without due process. If I was more cynical I’d even start questioning the ‘Cui bono?’ of such a system . . . you know ‘who benefits?’ When you can’t bring terrorists to justice and instead start rounding up whole villages of people and then spreading the resultant insanity to nation after nation . . . but really, I’m *trying* to stay more pragmatic than that and just go after the facts that I have access to.

Finally, you are correct in suggesting that is naïve and counter-productive to suggest that terrorism will cease if we stop interfering in the world. I *do* believe that we would find less hate-based terror directed against our nation and that would be good. I am certain that there will always be, however, pirate-type selfish based evil and terrorism in the world. I simply want to speak out against my nation ever committing the kind of crimes that turn ‘good’ people into motivated vengeful ‘freedom fighters’. I think there is sufficient evil in the world without encouraging moral ambiguousness. Two wrongs never make a right. When we bomb areas full of innocent people to ‘send a message’ or — worse yet, inadvertently or based on a system that favors ‘false informers’ — it does not strike me as the wisest, most moral, or even most pragmatic road we would want our nation’s foreign policy on . . .

All that said, I *do* agree that we still have a rich history of good in the world to celebrate. The greatest desire of my heart [for our nation] is that we continue in those roles and constantly self-evaluate to make certain our actions and understandings are true and helpful. I still believe we can and should.

Again, I submit in the strongest possible terms that I do not believe in Pax Americana [a state of relative 'world peace and stability' enabled and protected by the benevolent American superpower].
I am not necessarily for us policing the world or in an empire. But don’t you think that we should at least try to stop the genocide where we can or another world war? Can we really just sit back and let the Middle East and Indian sub-continent go to hell? What is your plan once we end our overseas empire to ensure not only our own security and the ever utopian dream of world peace? To think that if we stop interfering and policing the world entirely that terrorism will cease and the world will be a better place overall I think is naïve.

To all who assume that we actively prevent and lessen the dangers of foreign attacks and terrorism by attempting to over-reach and unilaterally quell ‘unrest’ outside of our jurisdiction I would also submit that thousands of years of history argue quite convincingly against that idea.
Of course over reaching and arrogance of our own power and influence is stupid. If we always act multilaterally are you ok with action then? Like for example the Korean War that was oked by the UN and many nations participated in. Don’t focus on the war itself I am just trying to understand when it is ok to do something and what is the criteria. I am not arguing your last point about “thousands of years of history” but am interested what things you are specifically implying.
The J. Reuben Clark quote was great. I think we should focus more on setting the example and everything else he said. But sometimes the example of our brave men & women risking their lives for others to give them a chance at freedom is an equally powerful example. Look at Georgia and many of the former Soviet satellite states for what our good example and dedication to democracy and freedom reaps when applied prudently and they take the good and don’t belabor the bad.

But it does, indeed, seem that many of these questions are all kinda of tied together.

Of particular interest to me is the idea of benevolent ‘Empire’ that so many of my fellow statesman seem to have been seduced by. It seems that many otherwise simple moral questions (like Connor’s on ‘indefinite detention without due process’) are too easily trumped and dismissed by this ‘greater good’ card of ‘Pax Americana’.

Again, I submit in the strongest possible terms that I do not believe in Pax Americana [a state of relative 'world peace and stability' enabled and protected by the benevolent American superpower]. First, I do not believe it is our role, destiny, or right to try to militarily police the affairs of other sovereign regions. Secondly, I know too much of human nature to believe that the entire US bureaucracy and leadership is always so free of self-interest, corruption, confusion, and error that we could ever pretend to wisely intervene in the affairs and relationships of all other governments and peoples on the planet.

The run-up to our current Iraqi war should be a crystal clarification to any that assume our system allows us to (a) accurately assess all foreign intelligence reports, (b) act militarily without giving undue weight to our own national ambitions, or (c) always succeed in using a ‘firm hand’ to increase safety, stability, and freedom elsewhere in the world.

To all who assume that we actively prevent and lessen the dangers of foreign attacks and terrorism by attempting to over-reach and unilaterally quell ‘unrest’ outside of our jurisdiction I would also submit that thousands of years of history argue quite convincingly against that idea.

Two points of view come to mind (besides all the thought-provoking quotes in Connor’s new blog post on ‘renouncing war‘): the memoir of decorated General Smedley Butler: ‘War is a Racket’ (see the link) and also that of the influential former undersecretary of State J. Reuben Clark (yes, that J. Reuben Clark) who commented:

“For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example.”

Let’s step back a moment. Before this post-9/11 induced terrorism fearmongering, the term “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” was not used. Its derivation stems from the Gestapo. Orwellian in intent, this term has become the popularized euphemism used to quell civilian discontent with the actions it describes. In the past few years it has become a comfortable term for imperialist neoconservatives who glorify the state.
The term wasn’t used probably because no one knew nor cared that the same techniques were being used. Also, in part because Republicans are tougher on security and when a democratic administration is tough they don’t criticize them. I love how you threw in the word “Gestapo” to hype up the debate. I can do the same thing. I say we both stop playing this stupid game of who can invoke the worst images or use the most polarizing words in an attempt to base our arguments solely on emotions. It is beneath both of our intelligences. Also, I appreciate once again the snide remark about me being an “imperialist” and “glorifying the state” but since you never answered my question about the differing definitions of empire (comment #38 & #52) then I think your comment was a bit harsh. If you’d like to add your opinion on Bahrain and other similar bases please chime in.
EIT’s while admittedly is a word play goes back to my first point you quoted. There is a difference between torture and enhanced, advanced, rougher, meaner, tougher (whatever adjective you want to insert) techniques. Normal interrogation is just simple question and answer thus making “Good Cop, Bad Cop” and other harsher/rougher techniques would be consider a EIT’s based on what I assume you accept, Army Field Manuel interrogations. If you would answer what EIT’s listed in the recently released memo’s we can stop circling around and around and get to the point.

As per drawing the line somewhere, the onus is on you and others who favor these actions—not those who disagree with them.
Good job on avoiding my question… I favor water boarding only when specifically order by the President and only under an immediate threat when all other techniques have failed. Sleep deprivation, cold, stress positions, are not torture in my opinion. Neither are empty threats of shipping them to Egypt, yelling at them, or putting a caterpillar in their cell. All interrogations should be done in the presence of a doctor to ensure the safety of the prisoner. Congress should be completely informed on all cases/techniques before implemented. Does that help? Your turn.

Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist who is a child in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
I love how you just got done lambasting me about word play then you use a question that uses the same technique. To use the word torture automatically raises the emotion of the question because it conjures up the harshest treatment imaginable. If we are talking about what I believe to be torture then it is never ok but if we are talking your definition when I’d still say no on a child. Children should get special treatment just like they do in our system. Some can be treated as adults depending on their crime and age. I really doubt children will have any high value information though. EIT’s are only permissible on high ranking people that are conclusively terrorist not suspected.

Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist who is a woman in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
Yes if she is considered high enough in the organization to have useful information that cannot be gained through other means. Knowing radical Islam’s view on women this is as unlikely to happen as the child example.

Is it morally permissible to torture by any means a suspected terrorist in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
If you don’t have concrete evidence then no. Water boarding was only used of three people all of which are undeniably terrorists and some of the worst ones in fact.

Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist even if it results in his permanent disability in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
Of course not.

Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist even if it results in his death in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
Nope. Love how the last two questions serve to raise the level of emotion even more on the topic of EIT’s or torture in this case. This guy sure doesn’t have an agenda. (sarcasm)

If torture is okay, then why not rape female terrorists until they talk? It would hurt them less than pulling out their fingernails. I’m sure there would be no shortage of soldiers willing to participate. Hey, if it saves one American life then it must be okay. Right?
The question is completely ridiculous. Rape is and will never be considered (rightfully so). If you or this guy is comparing sleep deprivation with rape then you’re both a little nuts. He could have made his point without the insult to the armed forces though. I am sure this guy is motivated by really high morals (sarcasm).

Based on what evidence? As one who constantly demands facts and sources, and claims to be equally cynical of all accusations and assumptions, this biased quote in favor of the detainees’ guilt betrays your claims. Or do you think that only people born in American deserve to be innocent until proven guilty?
The evidence that Loqua provided in one of her articles about a man in Gitmo for a few years because he was an Afghani warlord forcing people to pay him money by the point of an AK-47 for one. There is another one which Kelly & I talked about on the “Outrage Over A Shoe” blog. Do you believe that our government just picks people up randomly to imprison them on the taxpayers dime for fun? I am cynical of everyone but do believe that most people are motivated by good intentions though they do make bad choices. I also love how you never pass up a chance for a backhanded insult. It was my opinion from my before mentioned belief in the goodness of each individual that our government means well when attempting to protect our country but does make a lot of bad decisions. I believe what official story unless credible evidence is placed before me to refute it. To not believe everything reported by the government is border line paranoia.

To use the extreme example used above, is sexual intercourse always rape? Or does motive and consent have something to do with it? Clearly, the actions of two consenting adults “making love” and one aggressive individual forcing himself on an unwilling woman are at their core the same. Yet the motive and consent involved drastically changes things.
That is a good example but I don’t see how it relates to my original point. Sex is sex and only under a certain context is rape (ie illegal). Torture should be torture no matter the context, even if both agree to it in advance. To “torture” someone to train them to resist real torture doesn’t make sense to me.

This conversation has, understandably, taken up the issue of waterboarding/torture more than anything else.
That would be partly my fault but I couldn’t help it since you did put it into your blog and I am a pretty thorough. I have raised several questions about Gitmo (see comment #3 & #34) which remain unanswered so the blame is not completely mine for straying from the original topic.

To deprive an intelligent human being of his free agency is to commit the crime of the ages….
And to deprive people of their life is the worst sin only after denying the Holy Ghost. Imprisoning innocent people is horrible and I’ve already talked about this a bit in comment #68. I think some horrible mistakes should be separated from the people that are at Gitmo that are guilty like the “big three.” I answer your original point when I asked you about Miranda rights and how every person picked up would have to be released and thus making them impossible to try in civilian courts. So how would you proceed? If there cases are thrown out where would you put them. No countries are willing to accept them that won’t actually torture them and we can’t release them here. US bases are considered US soil so your assumption that they reside “outside of America” is false. The same rules and laws should apply. To think that EIT’s would stop if a Gitmo style prison existed in the US I don’t think is true.

I believe that President David O. McKay said it best:

To deprive an intelligent human being of his free agency is to commit the crime of the ages….

Guantanamo exists to do just that—deprive its inhabitants of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are without a doubt some individuals within its walls that deserve to be in prison and have committed some sort of crime. But to establish and maintain an extra-Constitutional establishment outside of America to lock up these brown-skinned non-persons (as others seem to consider them, not me) is not something I stand for. We’re better than that. Or, well, we should be…

For you to do it voluntarily to yourself is one thing. For another person to force you to do this is quite another.

Do you consider all EIT’s torture or just some of them? Please be specific. Where do you draw the line between what is ok and what isn’t?

Let’s step back a moment. Before this post-9/11 induced terrorism fearmongering, the term “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” was not used. Its derivation stems from the Gestapo. Orwellian in intent, this term has become the popularized euphemism used to quell civilian discontent with the actions it describes. In the past few years it has become a comfortable term for imperialist neoconservatives who glorify the state.

It might be more honest to cast aside the recent change in terminology and embrace the commonly understood definition from just a few years ago: torture.

As per drawing the line somewhere, the onus is on you and others who favor these actions—not those who disagree with them. If you want to torture somebody, or used so-called “enhanced” techniques (as if that even means anything), then you have to define what is acceptable and what is not. So, what say you?

You might be careful as you try to settle on something you feel comfortable with, and consider the following questions:

• Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist who is a child in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
• Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist who is a woman in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
• Is it morally permissible to torture by any means a suspected terrorist in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
• Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist even if it results in his permanent disability in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?
• Is it morally permissible to torture a suspected terrorist even if it results in his death in an attempt to gain information that may save American lives? If not, then why not?

Or, as the same individual has written elsewhere:

If torture is okay, then why not rape female terrorists until they talk? It would hurt them less than pulling out their fingernails. I’m sure there would be no shortage of soldiers willing to participate. Hey, if it saves one American life then it must be okay. Right?

I would wager that most of the people released from Gitmo though they had no terrorist ties were still doing criminal/bad things which was why they go targeted in the first place.

Based on what evidence? As one who constantly demands facts and sources, and claims to be equally cynical of all accusations and assumptions, this biased quote in favor of the detainees’ guilt betrays your claims. Or do you think that only people born in American deserve to be innocent until proven guilty?

I still don’t see how a practice when used for training can be seen as ok but when used to get information on terrorists to save lives is torture. Is waterboading only torture based on the intent of the interrogator?

To use the extreme example used above, is sexual intercourse always rape? Or does motive and consent have something to do with it? Clearly, the actions of two consenting adults “making love” and one aggressive individual forcing himself on an unwilling woman are at their core the same. Yet the motive and consent involved drastically changes things.

Chris: Napolean’s comment can be found here It is from the book Napoleon on the Art of War on page 11under the section on Intelligence.

Also, here is a link to address the Guantanamo is/isn’t making terrorists debate.

In fact, this entire report is vital to this whole debate. In 2007 McClatchy Newspapers did an eight month investigative study of the detainees. They interviewed as many as they could and got access to their records, whenever possible. I would encourage you to read the profiles of the detainees.

There are some excellent documents, especially this one. Pay special attention to pages 6-9 of this document. There are important explanations of the purpose of each tactic as used by an “interrogator”.

This is a 63 page file, but if you flip through it there are several other important and revealing things in there, like this “The pressures used in training are minor in comparison to that which American prisoners have experienced in the past.” And then “If too much physical pressure is applied, the student is made vulnerable to the effects of learned helplessness, which will render him/her less prepared for captivity than s/he was prior to training.” Thus, it is logical to reject assertions that our use of EIT’s on prisoners is no worse than our use of it on our own SERE trainees. They are entirely different situations, even according to the JPRA. (Joint Personnel Recovery Agency).

Here is an excellent video about Guantanamo :

http://americannewsproject.com/videos/profile-guantanamo-lawyer-speaks-out

It is actually about an attorney who is expressing his concerns about the legality of the system, but the images in the middle that show how the prisoners are treated are revealing.

Carb: Sorry about my goof.

You have always provided thoughtful comments throughout Connor’s blog, this time I am surprised to be on the other side. Your statements in this thread smack of relativism. Ideals are necessary, they are called principles. Without principles we are left like chaff to the wind. Think about it . You are asking us to withhold judgment until we have all the facts. Will we ever have all of the facts? In this sinful world, do you think that those in power will ever help us to make an informed decision? With so much “spin” out there, we will always be told what those in power want us to hear to shepherd us to the decision they want us to make. We have to use our knowledge of principles and not use conditional judgment.

You are absolutely right about the Holy Ghost, however. We have to use his guidance, especially in a world that is so corrupt. We cannot rely on media for accurate information, but we can rely on the Holy Ghost to help us to discern what is true and isn’t. We should have made a decision about torture before it was ever used. We have the Holy Ghost to help us do just that. We can pray about it and study the issue and come to a conclusion based on truth.

I have not actually prayed to know that torture was in fact always wrong, but I have pondered and listened carefully for the Spirit as I have studied it. I am convinced the Lord would not condone it under any circumstances. There are other ways of getting information than torture. The Nephites went to their prophets to get intel. I realize that the chances of the DOD asking president Monson for intel are pretty slim, but the point is that a righteous nation has other means of getting intel then through torture.

Carissa: You rock!!! You have made many excellent points.

Good luck on the dishes… ha ha. Sorry for assuming that you didn’t thought WB was ok on our soldiers. That was directed more at the first few people that posted on this blog who are trying to have it both ways. I commend you for your consistency! As for Soufa & Alexander I find it funny that some people pick and choose who they are cynical of. I am not suggesting that you do this but it seems to me that many people the comment here hate Bush & Cheney and don’t believe anything they say ever but if anyone says anything against them they are automatically credible and we should believe them. I am cynical of everyone equally.

To bin-Laden our troop presence in Arabia was reason enough for Jihad. That is where it started, well that and our support for Israel. Gitmo does not cause terrorism it might “enflame” it but if you think it is in the top ten reasons or a deciding factor for the jihad then you need to read this.
Gitmo is a PR stunt. They don’t care how we treat them as long as they win. If they were so outraged about our EIT’s they’d complain to the UN and Human Rights Watch, etc. They don’t care because they don’t follow the rules either. They are dividing us by using Gitmo as a propaganda tool so we go after each other instead of going after them. I bet they have good laugh about out debate on EIT’s.
Our actions to have consequences but it goes both ways. If we accidentaly bomb a school some might join the jihad. If we don’t stand up to them with determination that also brings people to the jihad. See previously link for that. Even if we do everything perfect they’d still create some controversy to distract us and turn people against the war. The only way the terrorists can win is by getting us to quit. They know this and they are manipulating us to perfection.

Why is it that only our actions cause outrage? Why cant’ we ever retaliate due to the injustice they’ve committed on us? I don’t see why people always try to excuse away their acts by something we did (whetere justified or not). That is a strong statement and I don’t believe is true for you but is true for many. Sometimes people are just looking for any excuse to do evil. They find a mistake we’ve made and make it into a rallying cry for revenge. Sometimes people are just evil “and want to watch the world burn.”

No one has yet to explain to me why it is ok to use torture on our own soldiers and abhor it when used on terrorists

First of all, realize that not everyone thinks it is ok. I’ve never claimed I think it is. There are side effects for messing around with this stuff, even for training (on the soldiers AND on the instructors who are constantly role playing the perpetrators). It hardens people. It can desensitize people and lower moral standards- even just acting it out. There are some soldiers who feel it would have been just as effective to learn resistance in a different way. The training isn’t presented as how the US does things, but how the “bad guys” might do things. From what I understand, the SERE curriculum presents the rapport-building techniques as the most effective and best option.

As for Alexander you never answered my questions about him

I don’t feel I have to defend his choice to show his face but not his name. I’m sure he’s got his reasons. I think he is courageous for speaking out at all. I suppose I am just “siding with someone in the trenches unless he is proven wrong”. I tend to trust him, you don’t. Same with Soufan. There’s nothing I can say to change your mind.

How does that jive with the terror attacks before Gitmo existed? Especially 9/11?

According to his exact words:

“We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation.” – Osama bin Laden – to CNN in March 1997

They obviously are motivated by our government’s ACTIONS (whether perceived or real). They feel we have dealt with them unjustly, that we have carried out criminal acts, and that we are behaving tyrannically, arrogantly, and aggressively through our foreign policy. You can debate whether or not our government is guilty of these charges, but that is their motive for jihad- laid out perfectly clear. Prisoner abuses and degradation add fuel to the fire because it is more perceived unjustness toward them.

Using torture may happen to get a couple of plots foiled now and then. But how is that effective in the long term when it is continually fanning the flames of their hatred and perceived injustice?

Doug,
My concerns with the ‘paradigm shift’ pushed, apparently, by VP Cheney personally [among others], are two-fold.
The problem is that most of these techniques like rendition were started under Clinton implemented in part by a man named Michael Scheur. Let’s not throw Cheney completely under the bus for continuing an already existent and far more secretive program.

Second, and this is nearly as disturbing, ‘EITs’ produce bad information.
There is a huge difference between the EIT’s we use and the techniques employed by N. Vietnam and the other countries you cited. As I have mentioned before we don’t interrogate people to seek confessions but to gain information. Context is everything. Carissa and I have already duked it out about the effectiveness of EIT’s so if you want to comment on that please counter some of my previous arguments. I don’t want to have to repeat myself over and over if I can help it. As to the SERE school. No one has yet to explain to me why it is ok to use torture on our own soldiers and abhor it when used on terrorists. The amount of training will help a capture US soldier from breaking but in the end almost all of them will either break or die. As any soldier with common sense will know that you can’t believe what any captured soldier says though it probably does affect morale to some degree. Water boarding as bad as it is can’t compare to what the NVA and other previously mentioned countries have done.

Many of the leads provided by the EIT’s were not simply a ‘waste of time’ or marred by damaging the American reputation
I don’t get how this damages our reputation. I bet you can’t name me an influential country that hasn’t done worse. Why are we the only country that is ever held to any kind of standard while all the other countries lie, cheat, and steal as official policy but the world stays relatively silent? You should really stop caring what China, France, and these other countries think about us. As long as we can “look ourselves in the mirror” who cares what they think.

Josh,
Why do you think the intel gained is flawed? Other than the cynical view that you can’t trust the CIA? I am certain the CIA tries to cover its butt and has done so many times in the past. But to question their findings when the specifics about the things I’ve mentioned previously haven’t been questioned by anyone to my knowledge is a stretch for me. Who has claimed that the “big three” gave us the information prior to the EIT’s?

It is wishful thinking in the extreme to think that only the guilty and only those who are actually holding back information will get tortured.
You can prove that of course right? Since none of us are privy to the information then I don’t think either of us that make a claim either way. I will always side with the people in the trenches until I can prove them wrong.

Arguing that torture is or isn’t effective is entirely beside the point. For example, Scorched Earth warfare is effective, but there are both practical and moral reasons not to use it, which supersede the question of it’s effectiveness.
Good point. We return back to what we find morally objectionable. As I have said before I don’t think loud music, stress positions, or sleep deprivation as torture. I’ve put myself through those things trying to write a paper at the last minute for grad school.

So, even if it was effective, it’s still absolutely wrong and evil. But, even if it wasn’t wrong, traditional interrogation methods are still more reliable.
Again that is completely un-provable. The normal way is more effective if the suspect is cooperative but not all suspects will cooperate as anyone in law enforcement will tell you. Then what do you do? You sit back and let people maybe family members die? If you can then I’ll respect you for standing by your convictions but fortunately for us all we’ll hopefully never have to be in that situation. I am interested to know which EIT’s you think are ok and which are not?

I say again that the poor and repressed generally have neither the means, the money, or the opportunity, to become terrorists.
Of course many terrorists are middle to upper classmen but to discount the fact that poverty does play a role in terrorism I believe is false. Saddam Hussein paid $25K to the family of every Palestinians suicide bomber. Why would they kill themselves for $25K if they were already ok financially? Look at Somali and the pirate problem. If the country wasn’t worthless then we wouldn’t have nearly as many pirates. There would still be pirates. From what I’ve read you are quite right that poverty itself doesn’t lead to terrorism but I think to discount it all together is a mistake. The rich and affluent are always willing to provide the means to the poor to help further their own agenda. So in short I’ll concede the point but only tepidly.

Carissa,
If you notice Carissa there is a lot of opinions in the quotes you provided. Again informed opinions but to prove something you need data to prove it. You cannot prove any of your ascertains as 100% true and neither can I. As for Alexander you never answered my questions about him. If he was so worried for his safety he wouldn’t be on tv all the time. If someone wanted to find him they could now that they’ve seen his face. What difference will giving his name out do? From my research he has claimed to have been part of the TF-145 “Gators” which is HQed in Balad AFB, Iraq. The task forces are divided into four groups. TF West organized around SEAL Team 6 with Rangers in support. TF Central organized around Delta Squadron with Rangers in support. TF North organized around a Ranger battalion with a small Delta element. TF Black organized UK Special Air Service “saber squadron” with UK paratroopers in support. If Alexander was an AF Interrogator as he claimed then either he is lying about his location or he is lying about being in the AF. Again if you can’t put your name behind your opinion then you aren’t worth being listened to unless your life is at risk but I have already dealt with that issue.

No Chris, it is not laughable to think there would be less insurgent recruitments if we treated the captured terrorists better. It is a very serious matter. Our actions have severe consequences for our troops and us as civilians.
Carissa you have been so good and debating me until this part. I don’t see how you have in any way countered my point. Can you prove that Gitmo has been the motivating factor for any person to join terrorism? Can you point to any Jihadi writings that have stated we are fighting America because of Gitmo or our EIT’s? How does that jive with the terror attacks before Gitmo existed? Especially 9/11? I am not denying our actions have consequences but have you ever thought that the terrorists are using our own morals and values against us? If we start treating them better and start thinking of them as only victims or as rational people then we’ll weaken our defenses and then they’ll have us right where they want us. They are very smart and know how to use our own system against us. Much as General Giap & Ho Chi Minh did in Vietnam.

Here’s a quote from one Dr. Michael Radu, of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, (not that the title means anything.)

Those who hold to “poverty as the root cause” do so even though the data does not fit their model. Even leaving aside multimillionaire Osama bin Laden, the backgrounds of the September 11 killers indicates that they were without exception scions of privilege: all were either affluent Saudis and Egyptians, citizens of the wealthy Gulf statelets, or rich sons of Lebanon, trained in and familiar with the ways of the West—not exactly the victims of poverty in Muslim dictatorships. Many poor Egyptians, Moroccans, and Palestinians may support terrorists, but they do not—and cannot—provide them with recruits. In fact, Al Qaeda has no use for illiterate peasants. They cannot participate in World Trade Center-like attacks, unable as they are to make themselves inconspicuous in the West and lacking the education and training terrorist operatives need.

Indeed, ever since the Russian intellectuals “invented” modern terrorism in the 19th century, revolutionary violence—terrorism is just one form of it—has been a virtual monopoly of the relatively privileged. Terrorists have been middle class, often upper class, and always educated, but never poor.

I say again that the poor and repressed generally have neither the means, the money, or the opportunity, to become terrorists.

I don’t know where the myth that terrorist and religious extremists were “rabble” came from…… I’m sure this is some that the privileged violent extremists themselves believe, that they are champions of the poor and downtrodden, who are in fact the people they usually hurt the most.

Respectfully, I see that common sense arguments aren’t the best weapon against mythology.

For example, I think you would hesitate to describe members of the KKK to be “poor and repressed……..” (those were their victims.) If you would, read a good book on the subject.