Inconsistent standards
Letter writer Jacob Arthur addresses a subject I touched on in a satirical way the other day.
That is, amid all the alarm about harsh interrogation practices during the Bush administration, the Obama administration is taking actions that could be judged in the same light.
Will a future administration subject officials of this administration to possible criminal prosecutions for measures it undertakes in the name of national security? Arthur mentions drone air strikes into Pakistan that could result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Is that a legal action? Is it less extreme than waterboarding a terrorist detainee in an effort to extract vital information? What are the criteria under which one action is justified and the other condemned?
In the clamor to hold Bush officials accountable, these are questions that just aren't being raised by those currently in power in Washington. But they should be.
Others are asking what was gained by these interrogation methods. The critics say nothing of value, that such tactics just never work.
Then the New York Times reported this the other day:
"WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“ 'High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,' Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday."
This assertion was deleted from memos released to the public, clearly showing the Obama administration is trying to manipulate this issue for political reasons.
If Bush administration officials are called to testify before Congress or prosecuted, however, they will have the right to use all the facts in their defense, including instances where interrogators gained information that prevented terrorist attacks.
President Obama dismisses claims that harsh interrogation methods may be necessary at times. The Times story quotes some of his recent remarks to CIA employees:
“ 'I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve,' he said. 'I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while.'
"But he added: 'What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.' ”
In other words, we should be willing to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our backs.
Why? To be more fair to our enemies?
That will be a difficult position to defend if we're hit with another 9-11.
I am NOT endorsing use of torture. I am saying this is a much more complex problem than the president indicates in his public statements. Surely he understands that because, as Jacob Arthur wrote in his letter today, Obama is approving deadly actions that may have shaky legal justification in the name of national security.
Where's the call in Congress for high standards when it comes to killing people inside a sovereign country with which we are not at war? (Pakistan officials oppose this escalation in drone attacks, which they say prompt more violence by militants.) Or is it only the previous administration they want to hold to high standards?
And, speaking of standards, what standard of national security should the American people demand?
For starters, how about fighting with both hands?
Comments (13)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I always wonder where the belief that America is responsible for having a higher moral standard than anyone else comes from. Anyone that understands history would realize that America became a world power by carpet bombing the Nazis and utilizing the only 2 nuclear weapons in history.
This new policy of "win their hearts and minds" has not served us well.
Posted on April 24, 2009 9:54 AM
Excellent points, Doug.
This is a complex issue that can't be explained (or explained away) in a few seconds of soundbite on network cable news.
Thanks for putting this in perspective.
Posted on April 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Good job Mr.Clark.
Like Peolsi on this, she can spin with the best of them.
Talking about soundbites.
Posted on April 24, 2009 3:36 PM
Thanks, jaycee.
Interesting point, axhandle. Our westward expansion, annexing of southwestern territories, and Teddy Roosevelt's acquisition of the Panama canal zone all happened by means that did not meet high standards. Fortunately, too late for prosecutions.
Posted on April 24, 2009 3:39 PM
By the way, does anyone else worry we might end up letting Khalid Sheikh Muhammad go free because of the "illegal" way he was interrogated, not to mention the probable illegal means by which he was captured in Pakistan?
Posted on April 24, 2009 3:41 PM
This is all disgusting. What, we committed crimes in the past so it's ok to do so now? This is just wrong. Intentionally inflicting maximum suffering on a human being is not ok, even if you may get something out of it. In fact, it sounds a lot like terrorism to me. People on the right hyperventilating about economic policy and the "tyranny" of a 39% marginal tax rate should open their eyes and see what real tyranny is. Heaven forbid that there be an investigation and criminals be punished for their crimes.
Posted on April 24, 2009 3:55 PM
No, the point here is as the title says, inconsistent standards. What's applauded in one era is deplored in another. Sometimes the shift occurs much faster than that.
Again, I'd refer to the example of drone aircraft to strike at targets in Pakistan. There the intent is to kill people, not torture them, and the technology isn't so precise that you can be sure that the people killed actually "deserve it" by anyone's judgment. Even if they do deserve it, where's the due process?
And what really are our standards now?
Posted on April 24, 2009 4:12 PM
Andrew, please provide proof that enhanced interrogation procedures are a "crime."
I don't recall any convictions in a court of law for the U.S. using these techniques.
If you don't personally care for these techniques, that's called an "opinion."
Your opinion carries just as much weight as the next guy, which is damned little in the overall scheme of things.
If waterboarding is a "crime" then we need to prosecute hundreds of U.S. military SERE School instructors who have used this technique while training thousands of military pilots and other high-value personnel over the years. And then we can prosecute the Generals and commanding officers who ran the SERE Schools. And then we can go after the lumber companies that provided the boards. Then we can ruthlessly pursue the water companies that provided the water. And then we can...well, you get the picture, don't you?
Posted on April 24, 2009 4:56 PM
Legally there is no double standard. It's legal for the military to drop bombs if ordered to. It's illegal for the military or anyone else to torture people in their custody. Morally they are both wrong. Practically speaking neither has shown much evidence of being helpful and has more than likely worked contrary to our goals.
However, pointing out one immorality as an excuse to continue another is at best a weak argument.
Posted on April 24, 2009 5:00 PM
It's not an excuse. I'm simply saying we need clarity about our policies and our standards.
Is legality the standard? If so, what determines legality? The Bush justice department wrote memos that attempted to put legal props under some unsavory practices. Now people are saying these practices weren't legal at all. Maybe a few years from now the cry will be that practices of this administration should have been considered illegal.
The president, however, makes a declaration that our country will honor certain standards. Other than the list of interrogation methods that apparently don't meet them, we really don't know much about these standards.
What interrogation methods are allowed? And what is our standard in regard to dropping explosives over borders of supposedly friendly countries? If we can do it to Pakistan, can we do it to Juarez?
Posted on April 24, 2009 5:17 PM
Andrew, what "torture" are you talking about?
Can you cite a case where a court of law has determined that the U.S. is guilty of "torture?"
If you'll read the government's own reports of using enhanced techniques on three detained combatants you'll see that it is 100% effective and has worked enormously in attaining our goals, which is the security of our nation.
Posted on April 24, 2009 5:39 PM
Jaycee, 100% effective? It's that easy is it? No, of course that hasn't been the case, or even close. There hasn't been any report not so full of holes and provable falsehoods that has come to anything like that conclusion. I can't argue this anymore. If you want to defend torture, fine.
And when we are discussing if people should be tried and punished, which has been much of the recent debate, then, yes, legality is the standard. What else could it be?
Posted on April 24, 2009 7:48 PM
Andrew, apparently you have not availed yourself of any news from the government and Obama in the past week about this issue.
Interrogators used waterboarding on 3 suspects and it was effective on all three. Hmmm....3 out of 3 equals 100% on my calculator, what about yours?
If you have evidence that the US government, the CIA, the US Senate, and the President have lied about these 3 cases in the last week then by all means please share it. I'm sure the mainstream media will beat a path to your door as you apparently have info that no one else in the world possesses.
I would never defend torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques have never been proven to be torture. Waterboarding has never been proven to be torture. If you have an opinion that they constitute torture, then that's just your opinion and carries no legal weight.
Posted on April 24, 2009 9:49 PM