Controversial piece in the Inky

A while back, Satullo had written a pretty annoying, pat-on-the-head type of piece where he congratulated the left for "actually" having some sensible ideas (He presented mostly warmed-over right-wing ideas), so his July 1st column, in my view, brought him "up to zero."

As of midday July 4th, that latest column garnered 480 comments and the Inquirer published a "Readers Respond" section (Only five comments so far, also at noon on the 4th).

This has long since been known as an entirely theoretical point. As Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) put it before hearing testimony on coercive interrogation techniques:

I was once examined in a way that was, shall we say, left me in "a world of pain." The examination left me physically shaken for the rest of the day. It had no psychological effect on me, no nightmares, etc. Why not? Very simple. I knew that the doctor had no intention of hurting me. Hurting me was simply not the point. Hurting me was simply the unfortunate by-product of a procedure that needed to be performed. Hence, the examination was entirely different from a procedure where the person doing the procedure appears to enjoy the fact that the person suffering from the procedure is in pain.

The perceived motivation of the person inflicting the pain is extremely important to whether the pain is perceived as torture or not. I would presume, by the way, that the normal attitude on the part of the interrogators who are demanding information is one of "So, our evil al Qaeda captive feels pain, does he? Hey well, tough #$@%!" Obviously military members being trained are going to trust their "interrogators" not to take their pain any further than absolutely necessary, thereby making their experience something other than torture.

One of the common complaints I have heard from people who are frustrated that Americans are "squeamish" about torture is that "Al Qaeda does it too!" whereupon they launch into hair-raising descriptions of the tortures that these evil people inflict. But consider the words of the Plymouth Colony Governor John Winthrop (1588-1649):

America wasn't founded to be just another state. It wasn't a destination simply because riches could be had there. It was founded because it was meant for grander things. Of course there were evil people about at that time. My father pointed out that typical behavior by soldiers was far worse in ages past. To enter a city and to slaughter all of the inhabitants was a pretty standard operating procedure. To read of the Sack of Rome (Chapter 10 of Rome: the Biography of a City) is to understand just how horrifying it was to be a non-combatant back in the old days of the early 1500s:

The number of Romans who died after the raiders entered was never determined. The raiders arrived thoroughly soaked and hungry and miserable and took their anger out on the city, leaving it devastated and depopulated. The barbarity of drilling holes in people's heads with hand power drills while they're still alive (Something al Qaeda likes to do) sure is awful, but that sort of barbarism is hardly unprecedented.

Barbarity is nothing new, but we can be proud of America for having decided to be something better. As the blogger emptywheel puts it:

Comments

Submitted by Jenny Hanniver (not verified) on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 11:31am

Brilliant analysis, and as a student of the Middle Ages I could also write of the horrendous devastation of the innocent caused by the English chevauchees and the roving bandit armies of "Free Companies" in 14th century France, which brought on a major peasants' revolt--and further slaughter of noncombatants.

I had not read Mr Satullo's earlier article, but he has indeed improved in his perception of reality.

Reply to Rich Gardner's comment on my letter

Submitted by Anthony P. Schiavo (not verified) on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 11:50am

In my letter I asked the question:

"Is it more honorable to allow tens even hundreds of thousands of Americans to die rather than twist the arm of a terrorist who knows how to stop it?"

The purpose of the question was to clearly show that torture cannot be dismissed on the basis of honor as Chris Satullo did and the Inquirer have done in the past. If enough lives are at stake, and all else fails, it would be dishonorable not to use torture. I think to most Americans, a school bus is more than enough lives.

Rich Gardner, like almost everyone else who objected to my letter, failed to answer my 'yes' or 'no' question. Instead he argued that experts say that information obtained in this way cannot be trusted. So I assume he is saying he does not object to torture on the basis of honor.

Thank you Mr. Gardner for agreeing with me on this subject.

Now about his (non honor) arguments against torture. Citing "experts", Rich Gardner says:

A committed terrorist will use those situations to his advantage either to provide interrogators false information or simply to act in defiance, hoping to become a martyr.

The simple answer to this is: "So?"

Such arguments against torture by "experts" who say coerced information might be inaccurate are sophistry. Focusing on the accuracy of a single piece of information obtained by torture is misleading. All such information is cross checked against information from other interrogations, and sources. The result is like a salesman's lead list, most of it might be worthless but the few hits are invaluable.

It's all probabilities. If a threat is large enough, even if the probability of preventing it by torture is small and running down false leads occasionally costs us lives, the expectation over a number of such cases is that one will hit and a large number of lives will be saved.

Former CIA Director George Tennent, no friend of the Bush administration, has said that waterboarding is effective and has already uncovered plots and saved lives. I believe that one was to crash an airliner into the tallest building in LA. Experts who say that information from torture is not to be trusted should talk to the people in that building.

Obviously, Gardner and his experts cannot say that torture will never provide accurate life saving information available no other way. Ban it anyway? Thanks but no thanks.

Patrick Leahy has played politics with intelligence information in the past. Citing him on this issue reveals the true nature of most objection to torture -- getting Democrats elected.

Anthony P. Schiavo

My reply to Anthony Schivo's reply

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 1:13pm

...experts say that information obtained in this way cannot be trusted.

Senator Leahy makes the point in the testimony he gathered that the probability the program ever did or ever will uncover any such plot is vanishingly small. Should we proceed with the program anyway? One of the reasons the American Revolution was fought was over a very similar reason. The British were using what were called "General Warrants" which covered entire towns. Americans said "No. What the British are discovering via General Warrants isn't worth the disruptions to our lives and the intrusions on our privacy." We get the same problem with torture. Yes, we might perhaps uncover a plot, but that has to be measured against very real and serious disruptions to our lives. Remember also, 9-11 was hardly a "bolt out of the blue." The Bush Administration ignored lots and lots of prior warnings.
So, my direct answer to the question is "No."

All such information is cross checked against information from other interrogations, and sources.

The New York Times did a piece at http://tinyurl.com/5qvyzh that shows that the intel programs the Bush Administration promulgated did no such thing. In theory, that's a grand way for the programs to work, but in reality, they never did. Investigations of the program have shown that authorities adopted it as a "magic bullet" that would make all other efforts irrelevant. One of the most solid proofs of that involved the Abu Ghraib program. It was adopted during a time when guerrilla activity in Iraq was pretty low. Guerrilla activity grew at a steady clip as the program continued in secret and there is testimony from Iraqis that they were aware of the program from talking with tortured fellow Iraqis who had then been released. It's never been confirmed, but there has been some talk that the ripping apart of four Blackwater employees was a direct response to this program.

...waterboarding is effective and has already uncovered plots and saved lives.

If Tenet ever wants to provide something more than vague generalities, I'm prepared to listen. The WaPo columnist Dan Froomkin says that he's gone over all the reports from the Bush Administration that make claims of lives have been saved and disasters prevented and says that none have ever been substantiated.

Thanks for the informed and intelligent response.

Rich Gardner

http://www.prawnworks.net/

Recent Posts by Rich Gardner

Recent Similar Articles