by publius
Bybee Memo (2002):
[W]alling involves quickly pulling the person forward and then thrusting him against a flexible false wall. You have informed us that the sound of hitting the wall will actually be far worse than any possible injury[.] The use of the rolled towel around the neck also reduces any risk of injury. While it may hurt to be pushed against the wall, any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury.
Washington Post, March 2009 (describing Red Cross Report):
In a federal court filing, Abu Zubaida's attorneys said he "has
suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related
to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head
that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA
interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."
Bybee Memo:
[A]lthough the confinement boxes (both small and large) are physically uncomfortable because their size restricts movement, they are not so small as to require the individual to contort his body to sit . . . . You have also orally informed us that despite his wound, Zubaydah remains quite flexible, which would substantially reduce any pain associated with being placed in the box.
Washington Post:
Abu Zubaida said interrogators wrapped a towel around his neck and
slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was also
repeatedly slapped in the face, he said. After the beatings, he was
placed in coffinlike wooden boxes in which he was forced to crouch,
with no light and a restricted air supply, he said.
"The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in my leg and stomach became very painful," he told the ICRC.
Bybee Memo:
Walling does not in and of itself inflict severe pain or suffering. Like the facial slap, walling may alter the subject's expectation as to the treatment he believes he will receive. Nonetheless, the character of the action falls so far short of inflicting pain or suffering within the meaning of the statute that even if he inferred that greater aggressiveness was to follow, the type of actions that could be reasonably [] anticipated would still fall below anything sufficient to inflict severe physical pain or suffering under the statute.
Washington Post:
During interrogations, the captives were routinely beaten, doused with cold water and slammed head-first into walls. . . . "On a daily basis . . . a collar was looped around my neck and then
used to slam me against the walls of the interrogation room," the
report quotes detainee Tawfiq bin Attash, also known as Walid Muhammad
bin Attash, as saying.
While it may hurt to be pushed against the wall, any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury.
Says Jay S. Bybee, M.D., D.O.
Posted by: Ugh | April 17, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Reading these sterile reports makes what happened all the more disgusting. Subjected to such torture, who among us would not have a breaking point and tell the torturers what we think they'd want to hear? You'd think the torturers would be smart enough to realize this, but they kept engaging in torturous behavior. That makes them sadists. That makes them criminals.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | April 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Is this the same Zubaydah that is under a death sentence in Jordan? Death by hanging is the normal method in Jordan.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Again, Dave, what is your point? How does his death sentence in Jordan affect whether his treatment by the US was legal or moral? And are you suggesting that the US legal system needs to be more like Jordan's, or what?
Posted by: KCinDC | April 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Is this the same Zubaydah that is under a death sentence in Jordan? Death by hanging is the normal method in Jordan.
Then hang him.
If you meet him bearing arms against you on the battlefield, shoot him.
If he's captured, tried, and found guilty of a crime for which the punishment is hanging, hang him.
What was done to him is against the law, and was a sadistic exercise in playing with people's heads. Those two facts, BTW, are related.
Posted by: russell | April 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Is this the same Zubaydah that is under a death sentence in Jordan? Death by hanging is the normal method in Jordan.
How barbaric!
In the US, we mete out state sanctioned death punishment by happy fun time lethal injections!
That's called progress!
Posted by: Eric Martin | April 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Is this the same Zubaydah that is under a death sentence in Jordan? Death by hanging is the normal method in Jordan.
So are you stipulating that any treatment less drastic than what the Jordanians would do to him by way of legally sanctioned execution is OK in your judgment, d'd'd'dave? If not, then what is your point?
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | April 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM
"Walling"
So much better than:
Slamming head into wall repeatedly.
Others:
"Confinement box" = coffin
"Rolled towel" = collar
It is obvious which description comes from those justifying their actions, as opposed to those subjected to them.
Posted by: Fraud Guy | April 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM
KCinDC, Russell, TLTABQ
My point is that your moral outrage is misplaced.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM
In other words your answer to TLTABQ's question is yes?
Posted by: KCinDC | April 17, 2009 at 01:06 PM
"In other words your answer to TLTABQ's question is yes?"
No. My answer is: "My point is that your moral outrage is misplaced."
And, on the other thread I made it clear that I think putting an insect in a box with Zubaydah is acceptable. That is a long way from "any treatment less drastic than what the Jordanians would do to him".
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 01:18 PM
In other words your answer to TLTABQ's question is yes?
I think at this point it's more than clear d'd'd'dave doesn't consider the techniques in the memos torture and approves of their continued use.
Posted by: spartikus | April 17, 2009 at 01:19 PM
That's relativism, you know.
I think the proper comparison to make is with an intersubjective standard.
Posted by: gwangung | April 17, 2009 at 01:21 PM
My point is that your moral outrage is misplaced.
Misplaced in what sense? What is your criteria for judging whether outrage is correctly placed or not? I ask because I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, and yet now you are being quite vauge about what you mean rather than put your theory of the morality of and justification for rough treatment of prisoners out on the table where it can be dissected or defended in detail.
It seems to me that the outrage which offends your sense of balance is about what was done and who it was done by, rather than being a function of who it was done to. That seems to me to be a fairly clear point that is just passing you by. It doesn't matter who Zubaydah was, what he had done, or what might happen to him if he were in somebody else's custody. Those particulars are irrelevant to the morality of what we did to him.
Let me offer a counterfactual to illustrate this point - why didn't we choose to torture (or whatever other pedantic word you prefer to describe this sort of treatment) in a similar fashion captured Germans (SS and Gestapo specifically) during WW2? Were they less evil than Zubaydah, or less destined than him to a rendevous with a gallows? Or has something changed in us, in our system of values since then?
Our actions in 1942-45, the way we treated Axis prisoners back then, do these things not give you a sense of pride in the US? What the heck has happened to your pride and sense of patriotism, that the events documented in these memos are not grossly offensive to your sense of what the US stands for? The values which you apparently are comfortable with and are defending in this and related threads here are, in part, what our enemies use as ammunition to damage our reputation. Why do you seek to help them in doing that?
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | April 17, 2009 at 01:28 PM
One could say that he hates America--or at least the one that liberals and progressives have an ideal for.
But it's demonstrable that it harms the America that conservatives want, as well.
Posted by: gwangung | April 17, 2009 at 01:36 PM
What does anything related to Jordan have to do with that? Can you explain how this Jordan business is useful in any way to your making moral judgments about what the US did to Zubaydah?
Are you saying that you refuse to judge anything immoral as long as something worse might be happening somewhere in the world, or what?
Posted by: KCinDC | April 17, 2009 at 01:38 PM
In reverse order
First. " The values which you apparently are comfortable with and are defending in this and related threads here are, in part, what our enemies use as ammunition to damage our reputation."
The term 'our enemies' is very broad. Too broad, in this case, for me to speak to. I will narrow it in this case to radical islamic terrorists. Zubaydah is one, Bin laden is one, the 9/11 attackers were some. Those people hated us and attacked us before the torture. They use anything they can get as ammunition to damage us physically (which is more than just 'our reputation'). So, in my view, this stone is as good as another for them to throw at me - in this narrow case I dismiss your argument on that basis.
Second. Why are "the events documented in these memos not grossly offensive to your sense of what the US stands for?"
Re: the what: I do not like the walling, waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation. I am not bothered at all by the insect, the face hold, and the box. I can live with the slapping if it is a girly slap rather than a gladiator slap.
Re: the why: I'm sure there are various ideas of what the US stands for. My view is that the US can and should respond to attackers in a vigorous way. This guy, Zubaydah, was all accounts an actual attacker. I believe giving him a girly slap is wholly consistent with what the US stands for.
Third: I got lost in the double negatives here "It seems to me that the outrage which offends your sense of balance is about what was done and who it was done by, rather than being a function of who it was done to. "
Is this what you're saying: Your outrage at what was done and who it was done by offends me. Whereas I vary my outrage depending on who it is done to. If so, then it is my basic position.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 02:04 PM
d'd'd' would be quite comfortable torturing someone while not knowing whether the person was guilty or innocent. He's an ends justify kind of guy.
Posted by: judson | April 17, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Whereas I vary my outrage depending on who it is done to.
Perfect!
Now let's all just agree to orient our legal system around the personal tastes of dave.
And when dave passes on, we'll just appoint a new dave. Actually, maybe dave's rights should pass to his first born son. We'll call each subsequent dave: King.
Brilliant. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
Posted by: Eric Martin | April 17, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Third: I got lost in the double negatives here "It seems to me that the outrage which offends your sense of balance is about what was done and who it was done by, rather than being a function of who it was done to. "
In the interest of pedantry, there are no double negatives in that sentence.
Posted by: Phil | April 17, 2009 at 02:44 PM
I do not like the walling, waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation. I am not bothered at all by the insect, the face hold, and the box. I can live with the slapping if it is a girly slap rather than a gladiator slap.
Unfortunately for your position here, dave, we're not talking about an a la carte menu. Nor is your opinion the arbiter of what is, and is not, lawful.
What they did was against domestic and international law. It's against the law because it's wrong, in fact profoundly wrong.
They freaked out, and so they broke the law, and did so in profoundly repugnant ways. Having broken the law, they got their OLC punks to try to cover their butts. Then they tried to keep the cheesy, jesuitical opinions their OLC punks wrote out of public view.
That's the scenario we're talking about, not little Jimmy putting a bug on Susie's ponytail.
Posted by: russell | April 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM
"d'd'd' would be quite comfortable torturing someone while not knowing whether the person was guilty or innocent. He's an ends justify kind of guy."
Again, no one disputes (successfully) that Zubaydah was guilty. The interrogation was about getting leads on other plans and not about whether Zubaydah himself was innocent.
Since the only case i've discussed is his, i don't know how you can conclude this.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 04:46 PM
"Now let's all just agree to orient our legal system around the personal tastes of dave."
You, and every other human being, are selective in what you choose to prosecute.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 04:49 PM
"In the interest of pedantry, there are no double negatives in that sentence."
'Outrage' and 'offends' are both negative concepts, no.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 04:52 PM
'Outrage' and 'offends' are both negative concepts, no.
Not grammatically.
Posted by: russell | April 17, 2009 at 05:01 PM
You, and every other human being, are selective in what you choose to prosecute.
No. We have prosecutors tasked with applying laws impartially for that.
Posted by: Eric Martin | April 17, 2009 at 05:02 PM
Again, no one disputes (successfully) that Zubaydah was guilty.
Oh, we tried him for violations of GCIII under existing domestic law, while incarcerating him under the provisions of the same, and had him convicted? Good show!
Wait, I think I missed that in the news.
Posted by: Fraud Guy | April 17, 2009 at 05:39 PM
ddddave, you've ddddug yourself a hole here.
If your only point is "Bugs in a box with Zubaydah are okay by me" -- fine, we all understand that.
But that's not what the post, and everyone's questions, are about. You come swaggering in, accusing everyone of misplaced outrage, when your own outrage is strangely selective and myopic. Focused on the tree, not the forest. Or the hornet, not the hive. Your oblique one-liners aren't helpful, either.
State a position and defend it. Quit it with the oblique one-liners. Look at the damn hive.
Posted by: josefina | April 17, 2009 at 05:57 PM
I endorse this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 17, 2009 at 06:45 PM
'Outrage' and 'offends' are both negative concepts, no.
Stick with the . . . whatever it is you do, and leave grammar to the grammarians, thanks.
Posted by: Phil | April 17, 2009 at 07:10 PM
dave, you can endorse that article, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. First of all, it does not endorse torture, only that we should not say we don't torture. After all torture brings for intelligence, not confession. And that is where both the authors are wrong.
There is no evidence that any torture provided information of any value. And any information that those we captured had probably became valueless within days of their capture.
Secondly, you have yet to explain your commet about misplaced moral outrage. If anyone had defended Zubaydah's actions or said they were minor, perhaps you would be justified. Nobody did.
Oh, and I suppose you would have no problem, if I ever became President, if I ordered the torture of, say, Michelle Malkin because I believed she had knowledge of a potential right-wing extremist attack or group that may launch an attack. After all, she would then be a bad person deserving of it, right?
Posted by: John Miller | April 17, 2009 at 07:19 PM
"So, in my view, this stone is as good as another for them to throw at me - in this narrow case I dismiss your argument on that basis."
And yet countless military officers have spoken out against torture as greatly increasing the number of enemies of the U.S.
General Petraeus:
Why do you think you know better than General Petraeus?"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we - not our enemies - occupy the moral high ground.
Why do you want us to lose, d'd'd'dave?
More generals:
But your military expertise is doubtless far greater.Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC)
Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA)
Lieutenant General Robert Gard (Ret. USA)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (Ret. USN)
Rear Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN)
General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN)
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret. USA)
General Merrill McPeak (Ret. USAF)
Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard)
General John Shalikashvili (Ret. USA):
"In the interest of pedantry, there are no double negatives in that sentence."
There are no grammatical negatives in it, period.
Jeebus, I've been trying to get through to Typepad to post this for over three hours.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 17, 2009 at 07:37 PM
Sorry, just thought about it.
Those who think that not torturing will cause harm to our troops: generally armchair warriors who never served.
Those who think that torturing will cause harm to our troops: generally generals, colonels, and the like.
Hmmmm.
Posted by: Fraud Guy | April 17, 2009 at 07:42 PM
Abu Zubaydah:
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 17, 2009 at 07:44 PM
Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999, and Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994 say:
Anyone who knows anyting about COIN knows that the way to win isn't to outrage the people you population you're trying to win over by becoming infamous for torture and ill-treatment of captives. It dramatically increases the number of people who will rise up to fight you. Endless studies of prisoners taken in Iraq, and of other jihadists, have quoted innumerable of them as stating that they were motivated to jihad by such events as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the use of torture and indiscriminate killing.Will not doing these things make all jihadists quit? Of course not. But it'll certainly lower the number of people moved to engage in jihad, according to endless generals and experts.
I'll take their word over that of Some Tough Guy On The Internet.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 17, 2009 at 07:54 PM
"I suppose you would have no problem, if I ever became President, if I ordered the torture of, say, Michelle Malkin because I believed she had knowledge of a potential right-wing extremist attack or group that may launch an attack."
Let's get Terry Nichols on the waterboard, like, tomorrow.
If you think he's been out of the loop too long, try any of these folks:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1027
We got names right there. Folks who openly call for violence against other Americans, and many of whom call for the violent overthrow of the US government.
Why wait another day? Round them up and send them off to Gitmo. Strip'em and whip'em. Waterboard them, douse them with cold water and make them stand for hours. Slam'em against a wall, slap the sh*t out of them.
Make'em talk.
Cool with you, dave?
If not, why not?
Posted by: russell | April 17, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Then you endorse is an article that ignores evidence, facts and experience.
Posted by: gwangung | April 17, 2009 at 08:18 PM