Human Rights Group: Obama Left Wiggle Room On Torture

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Did President Obama’s executive order today banning torture leave wiggle room for the possibility of reverting to coercive techniques that the current exec order outlaws?

Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, tells me he thinks the answer is Yes.

Obama strongly repudiated torture as he signed today’s executive order, which mandates that the Army Field Manual be strictly adhered to during interrogations. But Ratner pointed to the following lines in the executive order that, he said, provided a possible loophole by creating a Task Force to study the issue:

The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

(1) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies …

The key there, Ratner says, is that the exec order appears to allow for an evaluation as to “whether” — a key word — the Army Field Manual techniques are sufficent to “protect the nation.” That, he says, allows for the Task Force to find after studying the issue that there may be cases where it’s acceptable to go beyond the Army Field Manual.

“It would allow the Task Force to go beyond the Army Field Manual,” Ratner told me. He added that this allowed for at least the possibility that the administration could conclude that “based on the recommendations of this commission, we will allow certain techniques to be used in certain circumstances.”

“It buys into the argument that somehow more severe [interrogation techniques] are going to somehow get at information that the Army field Manual is able to get at,” he continued, adding that it was tantamount to saying that “we’ll make an exception if there’s some kind of need to do so to get information.”

CIA agents are expected to be skeptical of this executive order, and Ratner says he hopes that these lines were put in there as a “sop” to the CIA. Nonetheless, he termed the inclusion of the “loophole” as “terrible.”

“I don’t like the fact that there’s any kind of loophole in an executive order that supposedly outlaws torture,” Ratner says.

One other data point: Today’s New York Times reports that White House counsel Gregory Craig, who’s in the thick of these decisions, privately told Congressional officials yesterday that “the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military,” as the paper put it.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/...oom-on-torture/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its always been accepted that things like this go on.

Bush et al just brought things to a head by opening up secret prisons to detain people indefinitely without charge - the subsequent media interest put the US' human rights record under the microscrope; and not unfairly I think. Suspending due process undermines one of the foundation stones of western democracy.

[Danno 1,228]

I think its always been accepted that things like this go on.

Bush et al just brought things to a head by opening up secret prisons to detain people indefinitely without charge - the subsequent media interest put the US' human rights record under the microscrope; and not unfairly I think. Suspending due process undermines one of the foundation stones of western democracy.

Trying to apply that Broad principle to every situation is clearly not historically consistent nor logical.

Consider "Marshall Law", Often the order to "shoot looters on sight" is given as well as other extreme measures which conflict with "foundational stones of Democracy".

I know we disagree but let me remind you of an old adage ... "All is fair in love and war".

Soon Obama will see this light too.

[luckytxn 2,264]

As a giggle lets say this. Someone kidnaps his daughter or wife. Someone is caught that knows info on getting them or her back. The only way to get that info and get them safely back is too torture the prisoner. Only he can give the order to do the torture and get this done. Should he do so?

Edited January 23, 2009 by luckytxn

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As a giggle lets say this. Someone kidnaps his daughter or wife. Someone is caught that knows info on getting them or her back. The only way to get that info and get them safely back is too torture the prisoner. Only he can give the order to do the torture and get this done. Should he do so?

I'm comfortable with torture as long as it has a non-trivial chance of getting results, so I'd say yes.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Ok great. Then when and where do we draw the line?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its always been accepted that things like this go on.

Bush et al just brought things to a head by opening up secret prisons to detain people indefinitely without charge - the subsequent media interest put the US' human rights record under the microscrope; and not unfairly I think. Suspending due process undermines one of the foundation stones of western democracy.

Trying to apply that Broad principle to every situation is clearly not historically consistent nor logical.

Consider "Marshall Law", Often the order to "shoot looters on sight" is given as well as other extreme measures which conflict with "foundational stones of Democracy".

I know we disagree but let me remind you of an old adage ... "All is fair in love and war".

Soon Obama will see this light too.

Probably not. But Guantanamo (and Abu Ghraib) turned over a pretty ugly rock and called into question for a lot of Americans exactly what their government stood for - especially in light of perceived duplicity on the part of the Government in justifying the war in Iraq.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Again, if you ask me, you draw the line on procedures that have a trivially small success rate or procedures that irreparably damage (physically) the person.

Edited January 23, 2009 by A.J.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As a giggle lets say this. Someone kidnaps his daughter or wife. Someone is caught that knows info on getting them or her back. The only way to get that info and get them safely back is too torture the prisoner. Only he can give the order to do the torture and get this done. Should he do so?

It wouldn't be his call.

That's commonly referred to as a conflict of interest.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Again, if you ask me, you draw the line on procedures that have a trivially small success rate or procedures that irreparably damage (physically) the person.

Ok but who calls the shots if it is a trivial small success rate? To me what may seem small and trivial success rate can mean different things to different people.

As a giggle lets say this. Someone kidnaps his daughter or wife. Someone is caught that knows info on getting them or her back. The only way to get that info and get them safely back is too torture the prisoner. Only he can give the order to do the torture and get this done. Should he do so?

It wouldn't be his call.

That's commonly referred to as a conflict of interest.

When you are able to grasp what I asked then next time you will be allowed to play.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, if you ask me, you draw the line on procedures that have a trivially small success rate or procedures that irreparably damage (physically) the person.

Ok but who calls the shots if it is a trivial small success rate? To me what may seem small and trivial success rate can mean different things to different people.

As a giggle lets say this. Someone kidnaps his daughter or wife. Someone is caught that knows info on getting them or her back. The only way to get that info and get them safely back is too torture the prisoner. Only he can give the order to do the torture and get this done. Should he do so?

It wouldn't be his call.

That's commonly referred to as a conflict of interest.

When you are able to grasp what I asked then next time you will be allowed to play.

You offered a bizarre hypothetical scenario with a very obvious flaw. There's nothing to grasp.

If a detective's family member were kidnapped, he would rightly be removed from the investigation.

[luckytxn 2,264]

AJ. (Since you seem to have some grasp of things). As another example. A high ranking soldier in Iraq was interrogating a suspect that he and the others in the room suspected he knew about a terror cell and an upcoming known plot to kill manhy troops and possible civilians. After much fruitless trying the soldier took out his handgun and shot very near the suspects head. The suspect freaked and spilled his guts that resulted in stopping that terrorist act. It crushed that dangerous cell in that area also. Was that soldier wrong to do what he did?

This can go on and on of course. At the time of the original interrogation it may have seemed extremely important and most would have agreed with that soldier. Months later though it got out what he did and it created an uproar and resulted in that soldier being brought up on charges. The political climate had a lot to do with it also as it was the time that the minor party was trying to portray everything that the majority party did as evil.

Of course most here will say that harsh interrorgation is needed under certain times. That soldiers actions at that particular time seemed like one of the big success rate. The pressure was on big time to stop an upcoming terrorist act. Later after everything was done and the cell was cracked it was deemed by some to be a trivial matter. The problem is who and when is it ok ever. Do we just now say to never under any conditions? If so thne fine. If it is that only under a for sure big success rate and not if it is only a trivial success rate then we need to define that stuff and who defines it. As mentioned before it may seem a big success rate at the time but later deemed to be a trivial thing. So now interrorgators have to worry how it will seem in the future to others and if they will be brought up on charges.

Edited January 23, 2009 by luckytxn

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I've said elsewhere "what if" amounts to pretty appalling reasoning.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ. (Since you seem to have some grasp of things). As another example. A high ranking soldier in Iraq was interrogating a suspect that he and the others in the room suspected he knew about a terror cell and an upcoming known plot to kill manhy troops and possible civilians. After much fruitless trying the soldier took out his handgun and shot very near the suspects head. The suspect freaked and spilled his guts that resulted in stopping that terrorist act. It crushed that dangerous cell in that area also. Was that soldier wrong to do what he did?

This can go on and on of course. At the time of the original interrogation it may have seemed extremely important and most would have agreed with that soldier. Months later though it got out what he did and it created an uproar and resulted in that soldier being brought up on charges. The political climate had a lot to do with it also as it was the time that the minor party was trying to portray everything that the majority party did as evil.

Of course most here will say that harsh interrorgation is needed under certain times. That soldiers actions at that particular time seemed like one of the big success rate. The pressure was on big time to stop an upcoming terrorist act. Later after everything was done and the cell was cracked it was deemed by some to be a trivial matter. The problem is who and when is it ok ever. Do we just now say to never under any conditions? If so thne fine. If it is that only under a for sure big success rate and not if it is only a trivial success rate then we need to define that stuff and who defines it. As mentioned before it may seem a big success rate at the time but later deemed to be a trivial thing. So now interrorgators have to worry how it will seem in the future to others and if they will be brought up on charges.

Shooting near his head? Sounds good to me. There's no actual damage there.

The rest of what you wrote reminds me of something I read once, about the Pakistani-sponsored terrorist movement in India's Punjab state. Supposedly, the turning point in the Indian states war on terror in Punjab was when they 'loosened' the rules of engagement for the local police force. Brutality, torture, etc., was all allowed and encouraged. The 'militancy' wore down and a year later all the top cops of Punjab were put on trial and stuck in jail. The Indian government won - the terrorists had lost and the local population liked them again because the evil police force (who were the reason the Indian govt won) were now in jail.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Exactly AJ. You understand fully what is going on it seems. Also we know that Obama has to try at least to do what he said he was going to do during the campaign when he was mouthing off on promising anything and all to everyone. He of course is not going to totally ban all interrorgation. He wants to be able to use it if he feels there is a need.

Edited January 23, 2009 by luckytxn