Wow, that Vanity Fair article was very troubling. The fact that non torture tactics were what got the importan info and then don't get the credit and that the torture tactics that don't work are being employed make you wonder how much valuable info are we missing out on.
More info... Read pages 99 and 100 of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine: http://books.google.com/books?id=EL...0_0&sig=vpg5mVPL-EOK0YvaygWiMdzAhic#PPA100,M1 Zuba gets run up the flag pole as a great mastermind of Al-Q, while the experts at the CIA call him a travel agent and a greeter: "Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar's Palace." And another account of the Zuba interrogation: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/w...&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Each branch of the U.S. military offers a variant of the sere training curriculum. The course simulates the experience of being held prisoner by enemy forces who do not observe the Geneva Conventions. The program evolved after American G.I.'s captured during the Korean War made false confessions under torture. Sure enough, those in sere training found that they would say anything to get the torment to stop. So not only is there willful intent to evade the Geneva Conventions, we ripped off the Korean War torture textbook for our methods? And these guys will likely walk free...
So not only was torture not as effective as other methods in getting information, torture actually produced false information, and resulted in wastes of manpower, money, and resources. It's also interesting that TJ hasn't come back to the thread since having his message turned on end. By interesting I mean routine.
Those of you who are actually interested in the issues raised here, as opposed to scoring some esoteric political point, might find this of interest, from some of the tweedier recesses of the vast right wing conspiracy: [rquoter]THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND "DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS": There has been a lot of press attention recently on references in the John Yoo torture memo to another classified OLC memo apparently concluding that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to "domestic military operations." For background, see here and here . What to make of this depends mostly on what you think the phrase "domestic military operations" might mean, and more specifically, what "military operations" are. If "domestic military operations" refers to actual active battlefields in the United States -- think the Battle of Gettysburg, or the British attack on Washington in the War of 1812, etc. -- then I think that conclusion is very likely correct. Why? Here caselaw doesn't do much for us. As far as I know there is no caselaw on anything like this question. Probably as close as you can get is United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, and that's still pretty far away. But I think the problem is that the principles of the Fourth Amendment and the principles of an active battlefield are almost 180 degrees apart from each other. Fourth Amendment rules are all about proportionality; by contrast, military strategy often requires overwhelming force. I don't know how a Fourth Amendment lawyer could be expected to weigh in on questions of military strategy to try to respect some sort of Fourth Amendment constitutional values. What would the lawyer say -- that the Army should break into enemy safehouses only during day time, for fear that breaking in at night could interrupt the enemy's "period of nighttime repose"? That they should "knock and announce" their presence before the Marines take a hill? It's hard to know how the two worlds are supposed to mix; they are just totally different. Or at least they are very different if "domestic military operations" is given a narrow meaning, such as an active battlefield. If the phrase has some sort of broader meaning, then you start to run into problems. Obviously, the mere fact that a war is on does not eliminate Fourth Amendment rights. Nor does the fact that the President is commanding the Executive Branch to act to protect the country mean that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. See, e.g., United States v. United States District Court. If the OLC memo took a contrary position, then it's pretty obviously wrong. As for whether the OLC memo takes (or took) such a broad reading, we just don't know. The Administration has long had a very broad view of how broadly "the battlefield" is in the GWOT, so it's possible. But we just don't know, and without that it's hard to know whether the OLC memo is objectionable.[/rquoter] http://volokh.com/posts/1207845944.shtml
So, according to the author, it's either a narrow view and correct or a broad view and wrong. Assuming that's true... I seriously doubt this administration had people sitting around the WH and Justice Dept writing memos on 4th amendment applications to the Battle of Gettysburg.
Of the two interpretations the author considers... the broad or the narrow... the probability of the narrow view being the focus of this administration is quite low. That leaves a high probability of the broad view, of which the author says: So, if you buy into the construct the author presents, a rational person, looking at the memo and related evidence, would come to the conclusion that the administration pushed the broad view... thus the administration is
Actually rimrocker is right. The article you posted said if it was undertaken in the broader sense then it was problematic. It was pointed out the article you posted said that. It is logical that the WH and administration weren't talking about the narrow focus of Gettysburg, so it would make sense that it would be the broader sense, which according to your article said this. Please explain how you aren't now denying the principles of your own article.
What FB said. So, you either didn't read the article you posted or you didn't consider the ramifications. You most likely did this because I posted in this thread an article about the administration intentionally looking for ways to circumvent the 4th Amendment and then you saw something about the 4th Amendment on one of the sites you get your views from and you automatically assumed it would counter whatever I posted. Yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Then, to top it off, you b****ily call me b****y. Funny.
Look, I've said from day one when this stuff came out in the media that it was all the way down the chain of command, and that it did involve the higher ups. So for the sake of being repetitive I will restate what I stated a couple of years ago... What the whole thing comes down to is this: do you support the U.S. directly torturing people or would you, instead, prefer that we let other countries do the dirty work for us? It will be and has been done for decades, it's just never been 'acknowledged' as official U.S. policy. It's sort of similar to that whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stuff: complete hogwash. But if you prefer living in a world of make-believe that's easier to cope with on a personal level, then by all means...
There sure is a lot of b****ing going on here. basso... I read your article and the comments that followed it. I seem to think that the administration took a broad view here. Your very own article indicates that this would be a problem. What I wonder is to what extent, if any, was JAG consulted on this? During times of war Navy JAG, for example, has attorneys sitting in the carrier researching proper military protocol for any given engagement situation. It seems that this would have been right up their alley. If the White House took it out of JAG's hands, failed to consult with the military legal experts, and decided to go on its own...it concerns me.
Both ways are stupid. We've seen in this very thread that information can effectively be gathered without torturing, and we've also learned that torture can effectively shut down legitimate information, and lead to false information and wasted resources.
Basso talks about legality, and ignores the evidence that these techniques are ineffective. What exactly is he supporting anymore?
