Torture is a term politicized by the Left to "get" legally and judicially those on the Right with whom they simply disagreed -- Bush and his team, for example. It is simply the use of government to crush disagreement, ala Putin, Stalin, Assad, Castro, Hitler and so on. So began the elimination of free speech.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
1
So you say. Yet your saying admits that what was done has legal and judicial implications. Free speech is no shield for criminal acts.
4
Genuine leaders, as well as people of character in general, accept blame they would wish were not theirs along with the credit they ardently claim. As President Truman so rightly phrased it, for better and for worse "The buck stops here!" Neither President Bush, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, nor John Yoo have demonstrated such leadership and character.
However, they did not create this dynamic. The issue of sanitizing torture at the top goes back at least seventy years, when the American government, through Operation Paperclip, brought Werner von Braun and many other Nazi terrorists (not soldiers) over to this country and set them up to lead prosperous, honored lives in Alamogordo New Mexico and Huntsville Alabama where, in the case of Huntsville, they are still honored today.
Should Passaro have been prosecuted? Of course.
Convicted? I wasn't on the jury.
Was he a fall guy? Of course.
Why is America so afraid of a "truth and reconciliation" process? Are we not strong enough to face the pervasiveness of complicity at many levels and in many forms for a multitude of actions which, in retrospect, we realize were wrong and unwarranted ? Are Americans doomed to wallow in the fear-defined, current fashion of Manichean polarization, dividing our people in a way that makes us view everything through a lens of vengeance rather than one of reconciliation?
One can hope it will be otherwise.
However, they did not create this dynamic. The issue of sanitizing torture at the top goes back at least seventy years, when the American government, through Operation Paperclip, brought Werner von Braun and many other Nazi terrorists (not soldiers) over to this country and set them up to lead prosperous, honored lives in Alamogordo New Mexico and Huntsville Alabama where, in the case of Huntsville, they are still honored today.
Should Passaro have been prosecuted? Of course.
Convicted? I wasn't on the jury.
Was he a fall guy? Of course.
Why is America so afraid of a "truth and reconciliation" process? Are we not strong enough to face the pervasiveness of complicity at many levels and in many forms for a multitude of actions which, in retrospect, we realize were wrong and unwarranted ? Are Americans doomed to wallow in the fear-defined, current fashion of Manichean polarization, dividing our people in a way that makes us view everything through a lens of vengeance rather than one of reconciliation?
One can hope it will be otherwise.
3
Someday, Mr. Passaro will get a very early release.
“America was angry,” [Mr. Passaro] said.
and now it's angry at you. you never did get the job done, mr. passaro. in fact, you made the situation worse.
be thankful that you live in a country that tries to rely on the rule of law, and that the rules and regulations apply to you.
...
at least there appears to have been some sanity in the executive branch at the time of the indictment:
"...the indictment was announced by the attorney general, John Ashcroft, who said that “criminal acts of brutality and violence against detainees” would not be tolerated."
and now it's angry at you. you never did get the job done, mr. passaro. in fact, you made the situation worse.
be thankful that you live in a country that tries to rely on the rule of law, and that the rules and regulations apply to you.
...
at least there appears to have been some sanity in the executive branch at the time of the indictment:
"...the indictment was announced by the attorney general, John Ashcroft, who said that “criminal acts of brutality and violence against detainees” would not be tolerated."
1
If you would consider water-boarding torture if applied to your son, then it is torture when applied to any human being. The same is true of any "enhanced technique" used in interrogation. Not to mention that the tortured often "give up" the innocent, just to stop the torture. How hypocritical and immoral we are, trying enemies as torturers, when we are no better than they are.
9
I realize the NYT is concerned about being accused of bias in reporting on a subject as controversial as America's use of torture in the "war on terror", but this story raises a fundamental question never expressly mentioned, much less answered: Was Mr. Passaro scapegoated by the CIA and the Bush administration? If Passaro is telling the truth--a very big "if" given that 12 jurors determined he was not--a very compelling argument can be made that he was the victim of scapegoating. If he's lying about his treatment of Mr. Wali--which is probably the case given the jury's verdict and the reported facts about his intemperate character--he could still have been scapegoated as part of the Bush administration's efforts to mislead the public into believing the USA does not tolerate torture--at least when it results in fatalities.
Needless to say, even if he was the victim of scapegoating, Mr. Passaro does not stir much sympathy in my heart, despite its propensity to bleed profusely whenever I read or hear about an injustice. But even an overly aggressive "bantam of a man" with a "knack of rubbing people the wrong way" does not deserve to be scapegoated by the government he was fighting and risking his life for. Those who explicitly or implicitly enabled guys like David Passaro to torture prisoners in the "War on Terror" deserve the punishment meted out to him by a hypocritical and morally impaired government. Of course, their power and influence will always protect the enablers.
Needless to say, even if he was the victim of scapegoating, Mr. Passaro does not stir much sympathy in my heart, despite its propensity to bleed profusely whenever I read or hear about an injustice. But even an overly aggressive "bantam of a man" with a "knack of rubbing people the wrong way" does not deserve to be scapegoated by the government he was fighting and risking his life for. Those who explicitly or implicitly enabled guys like David Passaro to torture prisoners in the "War on Terror" deserve the punishment meted out to him by a hypocritical and morally impaired government. Of course, their power and influence will always protect the enablers.
4
I think Passaro is right: he was a scapegoat. I was feeling a little sorry for him until the end, when he said he'd do it all over again. Now I'm sorry that he didn't learn anything from his years in prison.
As to Gonzales, his pathetic 'analysis' shows what a lousy lawyer he is. Is the law school that hired him to be dean actually accredited, or is it one of those for-profit diploma mills? I usually think of other lawyers as colleagues, but not him. He is, to Attorneys General like Holder, just what Dubyah is to other Presidents: a worst-case scenario, a statistical outlier who shows how bad we Americans can be when we follow our worst instincts.
As to Gonzales, his pathetic 'analysis' shows what a lousy lawyer he is. Is the law school that hired him to be dean actually accredited, or is it one of those for-profit diploma mills? I usually think of other lawyers as colleagues, but not him. He is, to Attorneys General like Holder, just what Dubyah is to other Presidents: a worst-case scenario, a statistical outlier who shows how bad we Americans can be when we follow our worst instincts.
6
No one is innocent during war. War is a scourge. But can we see some NYTimes investigations on conditions at 'other' prisons? What happens to people captured in northern Iraq, northern Africa, Afganistan, China, Pakistan, etc. etc.
I'm not saying prisoners should not be treated at least as well as required under the Geneva convention, but are they? By any country that is desparately trying to stop the next bomb, kidnapping, or beheading?
I'm not saying prisoners should not be treated at least as well as required under the Geneva convention, but are they? By any country that is desparately trying to stop the next bomb, kidnapping, or beheading?
1
So if other countries are doing it then it is OK for the US to torture also as much as any of the others? Kind of negates the 'america is exceptional' chest thumping although it is by far not the only or the worst reason.
4
Non of the government officials or their agents are above the law and should be prosecuted for war crimes violation of the Geneva guidelines. Bush, Cheney and the rest authorized torture under bogus rules.
6
“Did signals emanating from Washington give soldiers and civilians on the front line every reason to believe that, in dealing with terrorism suspects and their allies, it was O.K. for them — even expected of them — to take the gloves off?”
Does specious writing always reach its intended conclusions by disguising unsubstantiated claims as questions?
Does specious writing always reach its intended conclusions by disguising unsubstantiated claims as questions?
Those claims, Romeo, are quite substantiated by now. I'd recommend Risen's "Pay Any Price" as a primer for those who are unaware of that fact.
3
Not in the context of this piece.
Thank you for the recommendation!
Thank you for the recommendation!
Alberto Gonzales: “When I think about torture it’s broken bones, electric shocks to genitalia. It’s pulling your teeth out with pliers. It’s cutting off a limb. That’s torture. Is waterboarding at the same level? I’d say probably not.”
And Alberto Gonzales is "law dean" at Belmont College?? In what world does a school of higher learning appoint someone to this position with so little understanding of constitutional rights, the Nuremburg Principles, and history? Who's the dean of their business school? Bernie Madoff?
And Alberto Gonzales is "law dean" at Belmont College?? In what world does a school of higher learning appoint someone to this position with so little understanding of constitutional rights, the Nuremburg Principles, and history? Who's the dean of their business school? Bernie Madoff?
14
Talk about lack of a moral compass...
I am old enough to remember when only Nazis, "Japs" and Commies tortured prisoners, according to our leaders. We Americans were pure and above such horrible acts. Call it "enhanced interrogation" or a "day in the park", if the other side used it on our folks it would be called torture. Period.
It is wrong. Period. It drops us below the level of those so-called terrorists, because we claim and have faith that we are better than that... evidently, we are not. I would like Mr. Gonzales to experience "enhanced techniques" personally, maybe he will have a new appreciation of the meaning of "torture".
I am old enough to remember when only Nazis, "Japs" and Commies tortured prisoners, according to our leaders. We Americans were pure and above such horrible acts. Call it "enhanced interrogation" or a "day in the park", if the other side used it on our folks it would be called torture. Period.
It is wrong. Period. It drops us below the level of those so-called terrorists, because we claim and have faith that we are better than that... evidently, we are not. I would like Mr. Gonzales to experience "enhanced techniques" personally, maybe he will have a new appreciation of the meaning of "torture".
11
AG Gonzales' is one of clueless architects of the Bush Administration's disgraceful torture policy. Bin Laden turned out to be a puppet master of his friends and the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration perpetrated various attacks on the US Constitution and the USs sense of morality. In the end their efforts were plain self defeating. Chicken Hawks in the Bush Administration and their talk of taking the gloves off led to untold abuses of the law.
15
The question of the justification of torture is often linked to its effectiveness. It seems that may people think that if it is effective it is justified. But that totally misses the point that torture is a heinous act of brutality against humanity whether or not it is effective. So why do we argue over and over about whether or not torture has yielded useful information? This is beside the point. Torture is a depraved crime, no matter how useful it is.
25
I agree. The mere discussion of torture's "effectiveness" is repulsive.
6
Torture does not work. Do a cursory Google Scholar search on effectiveness of torture and see what comes up. It does not work, but it is a nice justification for all the junior Bush advisors (most of whom never served and some actively sought to escape any duty at all, including junior) to get all macho. How we as a nation act in a crisis is the true measure of our moral strength. When we allow thugs like Passaro to play the patriot card or the national security card we are disgracing the heart of America. In 100 years Passaro and his lot's actions will be recalled along with how we treated slaves and Native Americans.
11
The purpose of torture is not to get information, however that may be used to justify it. Its real purpose is to terrorize a population, to quash dissent through fear. And for that, it "works" pretty well for a time. It also raises enmity and ultimately creates hatred that blows back upon the oppressors, which we see occurring now.
6
Wish that were really true. If it was, there would be a real offensive ending Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, and other extremists that slaughter innocent villagers, rape their daughters, and steal their homes daily.
Genuine leaders, as well as people of character in general, accept blame they would wish were not theirs along with the credit they ardently claim. As President Truman so rightly phrased it, for better and for worse "The buck stops here!" Neither President Bush, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, nor John Yoo have demonstrated such leadership and character.
However, they did not create this dynamic. The issue of sanitizing torture at the top goes back at least seventy years, when the American government, through Operation Paperclip, brought Werner von Braun and many other Nazi terrorists (not soldiers) over to this country and set them up to lead prosperous, honored lives in Alamogordo New Mexico and Huntsville Alabama where, in the case of Huntsville, they are still honored today.
Should Passaro have been prosecuted? Of course?
Was he a fall guy? Of course.
Why is America so afraid of a "truth and reconciliation" process? Are we not strong enough to face the pervasiveness of complicity at many levels and in many forms for a multitude of actions which, in retrospect, we realize were wrong and unwarranted ? Are Americans doomed to wallow in the fear-defined, current fashion of Manichean polarization, dividing our people in a way that makes us view everything through a lens of vengeance rather than one of reconciliation?
One can hope it will be otherwise.
However, they did not create this dynamic. The issue of sanitizing torture at the top goes back at least seventy years, when the American government, through Operation Paperclip, brought Werner von Braun and many other Nazi terrorists (not soldiers) over to this country and set them up to lead prosperous, honored lives in Alamogordo New Mexico and Huntsville Alabama where, in the case of Huntsville, they are still honored today.
Should Passaro have been prosecuted? Of course?
Was he a fall guy? Of course.
Why is America so afraid of a "truth and reconciliation" process? Are we not strong enough to face the pervasiveness of complicity at many levels and in many forms for a multitude of actions which, in retrospect, we realize were wrong and unwarranted ? Are Americans doomed to wallow in the fear-defined, current fashion of Manichean polarization, dividing our people in a way that makes us view everything through a lens of vengeance rather than one of reconciliation?
One can hope it will be otherwise.
8
Forget prison: I do not believe Mr. Passaro deserves to retain his US citizenship. Or Mr. Gonzales. They have brought shame on our country.
8
Experience in Afghanistan or Iraq will help you get a job in most police departments in the USA. Need I say more?
12
His statement that "No one lost any sleep over this guy's death" says it all. No thoughts of the man's family and community. Is this the kind of empathy deprived psychopath we want representing our values to the world?
16
This article didn't mention if the CIA ever determined if Mr. Wali was guilty of what he was accused of, not that guilt excuses torture. I doubt they pursued it after Mr. Wali's death, so, as with the U.S. "justice" system when it incarcerates an innocent individual, the real culprit is free to commit more crimes, but, hey, what's one more dead hajji?
Torture? Nah. "He rejected any such suggestion. 'At one point he lurched out after me, and I slapped him,' he said of Mr. Wali, adding: “Is that assault? It could be construed as assault."
Slapped the man and killed him, heck of a slap, really. Passaro still doesn't get it; he doesn't even face his own actions sanely. He's like Cheney that way. But we need to, as a nation we need to face our own actions sanely, even if that means "looking back". And we need to vow "never again".
Slapped the man and killed him, heck of a slap, really. Passaro still doesn't get it; he doesn't even face his own actions sanely. He's like Cheney that way. But we need to, as a nation we need to face our own actions sanely, even if that means "looking back". And we need to vow "never again".
11
This did not start with 9/11. The CIA book of the Americas) trained the Junta in Guatemala, in Chile, Uruguay, Vietnam, Cambodia, and many other countries, By now it's force of habit, the first thing we do and then try to present ourselves as outraged. President Obama didn't eliminate rendition and shipping folks to other countries didn't leave our hands clean.
12
It is critical that Mr. Pasaro was an independent contractor who was not a CIA agent. His actions appear to have been at his own initiative based on his personal understanding of what was acceptable. He may have gotten "signals" from the CIA, but he was not directed by them to mistreat Mr. Passaro as he did. The more recent cases involved CIA agents acting pursuant to agency policy. Mistreatment at the direction of the agency is government sanctioned, reflects official policy, and is far more troubling.
4
Agreed. However, your critique is incomplete. The reasons for the CIA and other gov't agencies to contract out work are the same as they are in the civilian sector of the economy: 1. Shed workers easily and inexpensively; 2. Avoid legal damage to the agency; and 3. Avoid personal career damage. Contracting out gives both civilian and gov't employers legal deniability of responsibility for the actions of their workers. If an employer needs something done it can simply tell the contracting agency to find the right person to do this difficult job without ever spelling out exactly what the contractor's employee is to do to accomplish that job. Legal deniability.
As for the employee, it is best to always keep in mind that if you are told to do a job that you know or suspect is dangerous to your life or, in the case of the torturor, morally suspect, it is your life and your freedom that is on the line, nobody else's. A basic freedom is the right to say, "No, I won't do that." No one can enslave free people; the most you can do is kill them.
As for the employee, it is best to always keep in mind that if you are told to do a job that you know or suspect is dangerous to your life or, in the case of the torturor, morally suspect, it is your life and your freedom that is on the line, nobody else's. A basic freedom is the right to say, "No, I won't do that." No one can enslave free people; the most you can do is kill them.
1
According to the article, there were witnesses who described the torture of Mr. Wali. Apparently none of the witnesses considered it torture either, or if they did, made no move to stop the torture. I'd say "signals" were given to everyone in a way to give the CIA plausible deniability, not that they've ever been concerned about their actions, as long as funding flows. This was not a "rogue" actor here.
It is all very troubling.
It is all very troubling.
1
Speaking of "scapegoats", perhaps Alberto Gonzales was "used" too.
Although I give him credit for working hard scholastically, he was hired several times in his career as a "diversity" candidate by, perhaps, well meaning white Anglo-Saxon protestants.
Maybe one should examine the pros & cons of being a "token" before accepting the job.
One might have to sell one's soul or do someone else's "dirty work".
Although I give him credit for working hard scholastically, he was hired several times in his career as a "diversity" candidate by, perhaps, well meaning white Anglo-Saxon protestants.
Maybe one should examine the pros & cons of being a "token" before accepting the job.
One might have to sell one's soul or do someone else's "dirty work".
3
The broader problem has always been the Bush administration's attempt to create a class of people whose detention and treatment during their detention is not covered by either of the two bodies of law that apply to people detained by the US government: the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights. In the past, you were either a prisoner of war or an accused criminal. If the former, you were essentially treated as an innocent, detained merely for tactical reasons, to keep you off the battlefield. If you were the latter, an extensive series of "due process" rules governed your detention and ensured you were fairly tried and, if convicted, punished in a legally sanctioned manner.
Since Bush, we have a third class of people to whom no laws apply. Maybe there is a need for a third class—people who are suspected of being actively engaged in war or terrorist actions against the US or its citizens and who are believed to be in possession of information that if known could prevent violent attacks. But if there is such a third class, laws must be written to govern their detention and treatment during detention. Lawlessness never should be the American way. Unfortunately, in the war against terror, it became the American way—it became our way. And it continues to be our way until we change it.
Since Bush, we have a third class of people to whom no laws apply. Maybe there is a need for a third class—people who are suspected of being actively engaged in war or terrorist actions against the US or its citizens and who are believed to be in possession of information that if known could prevent violent attacks. But if there is such a third class, laws must be written to govern their detention and treatment during detention. Lawlessness never should be the American way. Unfortunately, in the war against terror, it became the American way—it became our way. And it continues to be our way until we change it.
5
Sorry, but lawlessness has been the American way from the very beginning, taking ownership of land that did not belong to them and making a concerted effort to eliminate Native Americans. It was all excused by their "knowledge" that it was approved by God.
1
According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is the internationally agreed legal definition of torture:
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and Yoo do not get to redefine torture to suit their needs nor does Passaro. They all meed to be tried according to this legal standard.
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and Yoo do not get to redefine torture to suit their needs nor does Passaro. They all meed to be tried according to this legal standard.
15
The article reads: "No one at the trial invoked the word “torture.”
The government prosecution did not use the word "torture" throughout the entire trial?
"[David A. Passaro] ended up being sentenced to more than six years in federal prison for beating an Afghan prisoner who then died at an American military base near the border with Pakistan."
"Witnesses at Mr. Passaro’s trial told how he repeatedly beat Mr. Wali with his fists and a heavy flashlight, and kicked him in the groin. Prosecutors described Mr. Wali as being in so much pain that he asked to be shot. This treatment of him went on for two days. A day later, he died. The cause of death was not firmly established because no autopsy was performed."
But the really good news is that the government prosecution did not use the word "torture" throughout the entire trial!!!
The government prosecution did not use the word "torture" throughout the entire trial?
"[David A. Passaro] ended up being sentenced to more than six years in federal prison for beating an Afghan prisoner who then died at an American military base near the border with Pakistan."
"Witnesses at Mr. Passaro’s trial told how he repeatedly beat Mr. Wali with his fists and a heavy flashlight, and kicked him in the groin. Prosecutors described Mr. Wali as being in so much pain that he asked to be shot. This treatment of him went on for two days. A day later, he died. The cause of death was not firmly established because no autopsy was performed."
But the really good news is that the government prosecution did not use the word "torture" throughout the entire trial!!!
10
"Prisoners --- must be humanely treated at all times. They must be protected, particularly against violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity".
Those are two of the many sentences that prescribe how the United States will treat persons captured during the conduct of war.
Those are two of the many sentences that prescribe how the United States will treat persons captured during the conduct of war.
3
We don't protect workers in the workplace from those bullying tactics. There have been few states that have passed legislation against workplace bullying and so, psychopaths like Passaro have many career opportunities to hone their viciousness. And, my suspicion tells me Mr. Passaro experienced to some degree what he meted out....in his childhood home.
It is saddening to realize that it is not his crimes that got Passaro charged because crimes such as his were ubiquitous, but that he was not well liked.
3
Alberto Gonzalez's definition of torture is that "it’s broken bones, electric shocks to genitalia. It’s pulling your teeth out with pliers. It’s cutting off a limb. That’s torture." No, that's sophistry.
The Catholic church, during the Inquisition, defined torture as involving the shedding of blood. No blood, it can't be torture, hence all those lovely machines like the rack and the boot. But of course it was torture.
All Mr. Gonzalez has done is to define the degree to which he is willing to sanction torture.
The Catholic church, during the Inquisition, defined torture as involving the shedding of blood. No blood, it can't be torture, hence all those lovely machines like the rack and the boot. But of course it was torture.
All Mr. Gonzalez has done is to define the degree to which he is willing to sanction torture.
35
Torture committed in the name of the USA and security is just one more sign of the spiraling descent the nation is suffering since the passage of the "Patriot" Act!
20
"When I think about torture it’s broken bones, electric shocks to genitalia. It’s pulling your teeth out with pliers. It’s cutting off a limb. That’s torture. "
These are precisely the methods that should be applied to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Blair, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of these parasites.
These are precisely the methods that should be applied to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Blair, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of these parasites.
21
The 9/11 victims payed for the crimes of "men" like Passaro.
NO country is going to endure having its citizens bombed, tortured, dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and not respond. America has a choice. Bring the perpetrators of US crimes to justice or have completely innocent Americans pay the price in retaliatory strikes. It's that simple.
NO country is going to endure having its citizens bombed, tortured, dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and not respond. America has a choice. Bring the perpetrators of US crimes to justice or have completely innocent Americans pay the price in retaliatory strikes. It's that simple.
17
Indeed. One wonders if your attitude would change had a child of yours been maimed or killed at the marathon bombing. The question you need to focus on is whether the extremists were justified in starting this mess given that no one attacked them first. Their justification is to subjugate the Christians. At least get your facts straight.
True, but who are the "totally innocent civilians?" I suggest that all of us (Americans) who shrug their shoulders and accept what is going on in our government are complicit in the crimes being committed.
Please, everyone, Unless you are in agreement with all of the disgusting perversions of democracy that have been (and are being) conducted to "protect us from terrorists," do something. Write to your representatives and to editors of. newspapers. Speak out against those who are committing crimes against humanity.
You may not receive immediate and visible results, but at least you will haves tried!
Please, everyone, Unless you are in agreement with all of the disgusting perversions of democracy that have been (and are being) conducted to "protect us from terrorists," do something. Write to your representatives and to editors of. newspapers. Speak out against those who are committing crimes against humanity.
You may not receive immediate and visible results, but at least you will haves tried!
2
Let's me honest with ourselves, the decision to go to war means bad moral and ethical things are going to happen on all sides. Yes, you can put in controls, but the number of books written by veterans of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan describes in detail the moral deterioration that will inevitability occur in prolong deployments amongst populations with questionable loyalties. This is not an argument against codes of conduct or tribunals to address war crimes, but it is an argument against the overuse of military options ---the one decision we can control and would guarantee none of the abuses listed in this article.
14
I think any and all ethical or moral concerns as far as the CIA is concerned are meaningless, therefore I only have one question that might be of relevance: how much was this contractor paid for his 'work'?
In dollars, not sense, what was the information worth that this human being was
paid to beat to death another human being?
In dollars, not sense, what was the information worth that this human being was
paid to beat to death another human being?
15
It is when one, or one's country, is under the most distress, pressure, that one, and one's country, discovers how strong they are. Are they strong enough to resist the understandable urge for mindless revenge? Strong enough to treat their enemy as a fellow member of our tribe, our species? Strong enough to live and act, daily, hourly, by that code we (the U.S.) so prominently and relentlessly espouse - All Men (Women) are created equally, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights …? Am I, are we, strong enough to walk in the shadows of Lincoln, Gandhi, Dr. King, Mandela and say, yes, like you, we didn't just talk about equality, justice, and forgiveness, we lived it.
Or are we weak so the minute the doors are closed, the cameras go blank, we treat those we do not like, those who have harmed us with the depravity we say only the savages employ.
Strength is not about balling up ones fist and doing battle. Strength is about conducting ones self in a manner that if the cameras and lights go on unexpectedly, we would smile and say, "Yes, come see. I am a proud to show you I have treated my enemies with the respect, dignity, and fairness I wish for from my enemies. And yes, I would be proud to have my mother here right now to witness every minute of this.
Or are we weak so the minute the doors are closed, the cameras go blank, we treat those we do not like, those who have harmed us with the depravity we say only the savages employ.
Strength is not about balling up ones fist and doing battle. Strength is about conducting ones self in a manner that if the cameras and lights go on unexpectedly, we would smile and say, "Yes, come see. I am a proud to show you I have treated my enemies with the respect, dignity, and fairness I wish for from my enemies. And yes, I would be proud to have my mother here right now to witness every minute of this.
37
Remember - we are going to look forward, not back.
Hindsight tends to soften people's perspective. People are forgetting the wound originally inflicted and the fear and pain 9/11 created. In the coolness of peace or distance from war, these are easy statements.
I wonder if and why you don't indict Truman for dropping atomic bombs that killed thousands. Or Eisenhower for the known atrocities of the Second World War. We revere Lincoln but the savagery of the Civil War is well documented.
Other than the attacks on 9/11, it has thankfully been a long time since we in our homeland have felt directly threatened. I wonder, truly, if your assessment is realistic let alone fair. If you've ever really been put in the positions these soldiers and government personnel were put in.
I also think we should move away from police actions toward requiring congressional declaration of war and away from voluntary military service and back to a draft...where government and society are deeply and completely invested in our decision to engage in and our prosecution of war.
I wonder if and why you don't indict Truman for dropping atomic bombs that killed thousands. Or Eisenhower for the known atrocities of the Second World War. We revere Lincoln but the savagery of the Civil War is well documented.
Other than the attacks on 9/11, it has thankfully been a long time since we in our homeland have felt directly threatened. I wonder, truly, if your assessment is realistic let alone fair. If you've ever really been put in the positions these soldiers and government personnel were put in.
I also think we should move away from police actions toward requiring congressional declaration of war and away from voluntary military service and back to a draft...where government and society are deeply and completely invested in our decision to engage in and our prosecution of war.
Very novel approach and appropriate were we living in the utopian world you describe. But alas, we do not. There are no nice wars, there are no rules in war - war is about winning. The US didn't understand this during WWI or WWII and it most certainly didn't understand it during the Vietnam war, but you can rest assured that our adversaries did. A soldier in battle has one of two choices, fight or die. You sit home behind your computer fat, happy and safe - that did not happen by accident, it happened because soldiers fought and died to preserve it.
"Beating a detainee who later died" . If that like shooting a detainee who later died?
This guy is accused of beating a detainee to death.
This guy is accused of beating a detainee to death.
28
According to the article he was charged with four counts of assault, not homicide. And the reason can be inferred from the fact that no autopsy was performed. Absent an autopsy it was impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the beating was the cause of death a day later..
1
"More durable concerns raised by this case dwell on where ultimate responsibility resides when things go terribly wrong."
This issue exists because of shared responsibility. The civilian CIA member who essentially acted like a mercenary bears responsibility for his actions. Those who put him in that position with the leeway to torture people bear responsibility for theirs. They should all be held accountable.
There is more than one court that can handle this; if the civilian CIA agent committed a crime on American soil in Afghanistan, try him accordingly and if the authorization of torture can be construed as war crime only legalized in America, it should go to the International War Crimes court because it is an international war crime.
This issue exists because of shared responsibility. The civilian CIA member who essentially acted like a mercenary bears responsibility for his actions. Those who put him in that position with the leeway to torture people bear responsibility for theirs. They should all be held accountable.
There is more than one court that can handle this; if the civilian CIA agent committed a crime on American soil in Afghanistan, try him accordingly and if the authorization of torture can be construed as war crime only legalized in America, it should go to the International War Crimes court because it is an international war crime.
31
Using contractors is construed by our outlaw governments, and agencies, as passing along the blame to a lower placed individual. Reminds me of the Mafia. The Godfather actually didn't murder anyone himself...well, not since he was a capo. He's got street guys who do that for him. Same with Bush/Cheney and their mercenary cronies.
5
What, exactly, is American soil in Afghanistan? If the U.S. invades a country and establishes a base, does it then become the U.S.?
2
Let's remember where all this started. A book, 'Torture Team', by an eminent British lawyer, Philippe Sands QC, soberly and meticulously tracks back to the months after 9/11, and comes to the door of Douglas Feith, a Wolfowitz appointee in the Pentagon. It was Feith's idea that terrorist suspects should have no protection from the Geneva conventions. Here he was following Israeli precedents, which deny the same protection to Palestinian prisoners. The reasoning? Israel has such a HIGH REGARD for Geneva it cannot bear to see the conventions sullied, in the protection of terror suspects.
The US military also values Geneva highly, Feith argued - it should take the same line.
This reasoning so baffled the poor old top brass in the Pentagon they gave way to Feith. Pandora's box was opened. America's reputation was fouled.
The US military also values Geneva highly, Feith argued - it should take the same line.
This reasoning so baffled the poor old top brass in the Pentagon they gave way to Feith. Pandora's box was opened. America's reputation was fouled.
24
What about the other torturers? What about Yoo, Cheney, et al? Are they going to skate?
30
Yoo, Cheney, et al skated six years ago when Mr. Obama declined to investigate war crimes (contrary to what he said he would do, follow the law wherever it leads).
26
It's difficult to condemn a the pathologically violent when they've been hired to be pathologically violent. As citizens we should be much more concerned about those who authorized this kind of behavior. The fact that Gonzales is law dean at Belmont begs the question: What are they teaching our kids?
24
Passaro has no regrets about committing torture and murder. Neither does Dick Cheney. These monsters have brought shame to our nation.
55
You may be right. How about you taking a trip to Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan as a volunteer to try and work out some sort of compromise with ISIS.
On a ship the Captain is totally responsible for what happens on his ship. Why doesn't the same hold true for soldiers, marines, airmen, and others under the command of major officers? They issue the orders that start these things and if someone down the line follows them then they too are guilty of actually carrying out the orders.
In the military you are under obligation to follow your last orders no matter what. To not do so subjects one to a court marshall.
In the military you are under obligation to follow your last orders no matter what. To not do so subjects one to a court marshall.
6
"In the military you are under obligation to follow your last orders no matter what."
Not totally correct. Military personnel are taught the difference between lawful orders and unlawful orders. They do not "follow your last orders no matter what" if those orders are not lawful orders. Following an unlawful order can result in a court martial the same as not following a lawful one.
Not totally correct. Military personnel are taught the difference between lawful orders and unlawful orders. They do not "follow your last orders no matter what" if those orders are not lawful orders. Following an unlawful order can result in a court martial the same as not following a lawful one.
1
When one looks at the amount of money spent by the USA on its armies and intelligence agencies such as the CIA, one has to wonder why they still feel the need for employing civilians such as this guy, or the Blackwater mercenaries ?
The only reason that comes to mind is " plausible deniability ", ie though we selected,paid, sent those guys in those remote locations , we are not responsible for them or their actions on a legal sense.
The only reason that comes to mind is " plausible deniability ", ie though we selected,paid, sent those guys in those remote locations , we are not responsible for them or their actions on a legal sense.
26
Here's another reason: the long-time cozy relationships between the Bush administration, the republican party, and the corporate pals who were paid to "play" in the Middle East: Of Prince, the head of Blackwater, son of a wealthy republican donor:
"He contributed $30,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. During college, he interned in George H.W. Bush’s White House, and also interned for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Rohrabacher and fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle have visited Blackwater’s Moyock, N.C., compound, on a trip arranged by the Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm founded by former aides of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay."
And that's just the tip of a very large iceberg. For more, http://www.salon.com/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/
"He contributed $30,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. During college, he interned in George H.W. Bush’s White House, and also interned for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Rohrabacher and fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle have visited Blackwater’s Moyock, N.C., compound, on a trip arranged by the Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm founded by former aides of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay."
And that's just the tip of a very large iceberg. For more, http://www.salon.com/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/
2
How telling that Alberta Gonzales, the former Attorney General of the United States, says waterboarding is probably not torture, when the United States has always insisted waterboarding of Americans by foreign countries is always torture. Is this what American exceptionalism means? When you do it to us it's torture. When we do it to you it's enhanced interrogation. Orwell would love that.
80
“We all agreed this was the right thing to do for this country,” says Gonzales. Ignorant and cowardly.
33
If Alberto Gonzalez is doing your explaining about toruture......your are losing. He is an embarrassment to the legal profession. Apparently the folks at
Belmont think he is just the man to shape young legal minds. Good luck with that. Eventually justice will be done. Eventually.
Belmont think he is just the man to shape young legal minds. Good luck with that. Eventually justice will be done. Eventually.
32
Torture was long ago defined with Nuremberg and Geneva, that Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush administration disagreed with this definition is irrelevant. The sad thing is that no one in the Bush administration was required to answer to their actions.
43
If beating a suspect with a blunt object isn't torture, I don't know what is.
29
What constitutes torture will continue to be debatable. What is not debatable is the senior officer who decided not to autopsy the Afghani farmer should be in jail with David Passaro.
24
Interesting too, that torture was subcontracted to, among others, Bashar al Assad of Syria. The very same Assad the US is trying to depose.
Of course what can we expect when the chief decision makers, Bush and Cheney were both Viet Nam dodging cowards trying to play tough guys?
Academia and the private sector have both rendered their judgement on Alberto Gonzales. A former US Attorney General, a mere Dean at a backwoods law school.
Of course what can we expect when the chief decision makers, Bush and Cheney were both Viet Nam dodging cowards trying to play tough guys?
Academia and the private sector have both rendered their judgement on Alberto Gonzales. A former US Attorney General, a mere Dean at a backwoods law school.
28
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Thus Pogo, and Walt Kelly was all too right. A self-identified "Christian" country that tolerates government-sponsored torture deserves to be flushed down history's toilet.
33
With all due respect, although Christianity is the majority religion in this country, we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation of many beliefs.
I realize the writer was probably speaking ironically (hence the quotation marks). But it is best to use extreme care with this label, because one of the strategies of the evangelical Christian right is to repeat the claim so frequently that it becomes popularly accepted.
Having said that, I agree with the writer's comment.
I realize the writer was probably speaking ironically (hence the quotation marks). But it is best to use extreme care with this label, because one of the strategies of the evangelical Christian right is to repeat the claim so frequently that it becomes popularly accepted.
Having said that, I agree with the writer's comment.
Of course, we must torture! Our way of life depends upon it! Our very existence is threatened by enemies who are so strong and evil that even the most extreme measures are justified!
Now, let us stop for a minute. Who is talking? Dick Cheney? Alberto Gonzales? Al Queda? Saddam Hussein? ISIS? Can't tell.
They all use the same rationalizations. They all sound the same. And that is the problem with the justification of torture. We become our enemy.
P.S. Has anybody considered putting Alberto Gonzales on trial? Isn't the buck supposed to stop somewhere?
Now, let us stop for a minute. Who is talking? Dick Cheney? Alberto Gonzales? Al Queda? Saddam Hussein? ISIS? Can't tell.
They all use the same rationalizations. They all sound the same. And that is the problem with the justification of torture. We become our enemy.
P.S. Has anybody considered putting Alberto Gonzales on trial? Isn't the buck supposed to stop somewhere?
52
"Agonizing over torture as an antiterrorism tactic — how to define it and how to punish abusers, if at all. . . ."
Ah, I see: Americans were the real victims. Anybody who puts us through that kind of agony deserves to be, I don't know, tortured, I guess.
Ah, I see: Americans were the real victims. Anybody who puts us through that kind of agony deserves to be, I don't know, tortured, I guess.
12
The verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials are clear, being ordered to do something is not an excuse.
21
The answer to the fifth paragraph's queries is likely both.
"Let's do this. Who are you, Abdul Wali?"
This playing-a-role-in-a-movie mindset could be applied to pretty much the entire George W. Bush administration post-9/11. . . . But President Obama is too much the opposite of GWB (if it's possible for that to be a bad thing). He's forever weighing the options, bordering on indecisive. If we had a better media (and a better citizenry), we could have substantive presidential campaigns where we could actually find out, in some depth, what candidates' views on America's role in the world actually are and, more importantly, what their views on human nature are, on the effectiveness of meliorism, and so on and so forth.
Getting to know a potential president's philosophy of life, his or her vision for the future ("I don't do the vision thing"), etc., is the only way to know how he or she might handle complexity and ambiguity, and what they will be aiming to achieve.
The euphemisms for torture are pathetic. I cannot believe there's a "debate" on whether or not torture, which is what E.I.T.s are, is justified. Of course torture isn't justified. Nothing justifies it, no matter what. And Alan Dershowitz is wrong, and so is everyone else who doesn't understand that you can't ever start treating people, no matter what they have done, as if they are a source of information and nothing else besides. We've gone far down a road we should never have been on.
"Let's do this. Who are you, Abdul Wali?"
This playing-a-role-in-a-movie mindset could be applied to pretty much the entire George W. Bush administration post-9/11. . . . But President Obama is too much the opposite of GWB (if it's possible for that to be a bad thing). He's forever weighing the options, bordering on indecisive. If we had a better media (and a better citizenry), we could have substantive presidential campaigns where we could actually find out, in some depth, what candidates' views on America's role in the world actually are and, more importantly, what their views on human nature are, on the effectiveness of meliorism, and so on and so forth.
Getting to know a potential president's philosophy of life, his or her vision for the future ("I don't do the vision thing"), etc., is the only way to know how he or she might handle complexity and ambiguity, and what they will be aiming to achieve.
The euphemisms for torture are pathetic. I cannot believe there's a "debate" on whether or not torture, which is what E.I.T.s are, is justified. Of course torture isn't justified. Nothing justifies it, no matter what. And Alan Dershowitz is wrong, and so is everyone else who doesn't understand that you can't ever start treating people, no matter what they have done, as if they are a source of information and nothing else besides. We've gone far down a road we should never have been on.
14
Dick Cheney's advice was the best
And torture was his best bequest,
His talent? Not much
A reverse Midas touch,
And war at his urgent request!
And torture was his best bequest,
His talent? Not much
A reverse Midas touch,
And war at his urgent request!
16
Mr. Passaro was clearly guilty of torture, and of course, he was absolutely a scapegoat. He should never have been hired by the CIA, and we should never have been involved in using "enhanced interrogation techniques" or whatever you want to call them. Contrary to what Mr. Passaro mistakenly believes, it has been shown that these methods do NOT elicit "good information" and their use has certainly degraded our national character. However, the most shocking piece of news I gleaned from this article was the fact that Alberto Gonzales, who was involved up to his eyeballs in twisting the law to come up with some justification for us to torture our enemies, is now a Law Dean at a University. Just what could his qualifications be for that position? It makes one shudder to think about the graduates that school will be turning out.
61
It's a for-profit Degree mill. Any legitimate Law School wouldn't hire Alberto Alfred E. Newman Gonzales to sweep the floors.
14
All Americans should be concerned about the abandonment of moral, civil and ethical standards during the mid-east invasions and occupations. There is no moral standard which allows torture in any case. The problem goes back to the Patriot Act-which basically tore down the established ethical structure of America. This act, managed to give law enforcement groups in the US a "military stance" as though a terrorist was lurking in ever town and village. It also allowed American citizens, military and civilian, to think they had the right to actually "torture" captives. Guerrilla wars are tough but to extend torture as part of the American response to captured prisoners took America to a dark place from which they will not recover. No more is there the American moralist stance. Americans have been guilty of depraved medieval operations. It has been shown that torture did not really reveal much useful information. The most revealing thing about America is that medieval torture and imprisonment became allowed for many captives. It is a sad commentary to wars that should have never have happened.
85
Unfortunately, rather than being an "abandonment of moral, civil and ethical standards", it was a continuation of tactics used in years past and many different theaters. The US military not only has historically used torture as a means of interrogation and punishment in both guerrilla and non-guerrilla conflicts, but has instructed military officers of Latin American states in the use of torture in the School of the Americas, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and elsewhere. Graduates of the SOA went on to terrorize South and Central American citizens between the 1960s to 1980s by the thousands. The record of US military and CIA use of torture in Southeast Asia, especially Vietnam, is well documented.
While we must continue to oppose torture, we should not be so naive to believe that this was a departure from past practices.
While we must continue to oppose torture, we should not be so naive to believe that this was a departure from past practices.
12
The Patriot Act has opened the door to additional abuses such as rendition, spying on American citizens, drone attacks and murders without the benefit of due process. Homeland Security is a polite term for the US version of the Gestapo. What have we become and what have we done to ourselves and to others all out of fear and righteousness.
2
By any reasonable standard of the term, David Passaro engaged in torture and he did so on behalf of the US government. He never should have been permitted to interrogate Abdul Wali, but the Bush administration didn't really care if he was qualified to do so. Ultimate responsibility cannot rest solely with the man who committed these awful crimes; the previous regime absolutely sent every signal that if its interrogators wanted to act like characters from an overhyped TV show it could do so.
Alberto Gonzalez remains one of the worst Attorneys General we have ever had; his performance in office does not warrant any job as a law dean. It warranted criminal charges. Gonzalez's definition of torture is itself tortured; he remains in some sort of denial about what he approved, first as White House counsel then as our top law-enforcement official.
Credit to the excellent Retro Report series for returning some focus to an episode that so many in the previous administration dearly wish they could sweep under the rug if not whitewash from the history books. It is hard to read or reread about what was done in our name, but it is very necessary. What should really unnerve us is how much we still don't know from that era and if certain people get their way we'll never know.
Alberto Gonzalez remains one of the worst Attorneys General we have ever had; his performance in office does not warrant any job as a law dean. It warranted criminal charges. Gonzalez's definition of torture is itself tortured; he remains in some sort of denial about what he approved, first as White House counsel then as our top law-enforcement official.
Credit to the excellent Retro Report series for returning some focus to an episode that so many in the previous administration dearly wish they could sweep under the rug if not whitewash from the history books. It is hard to read or reread about what was done in our name, but it is very necessary. What should really unnerve us is how much we still don't know from that era and if certain people get their way we'll never know.
109
All of this will be whitewashed in our future history books used by our children just like so much of the obnoxious and illegal behavior of the US in past aggressions. There will be no mention of torture or other abuses committed in the useless war of the ME.
4
Umm...you do realize this guy was prosecuted by the Bush administration prior to Gonzales taking office, right?
i. By employing "contractors" America tried to build denial of culpability into the occupation of Afghania, the simple purpose of which was the kill as many as possible of the able bodied Afghans, so that Afghans would no be able to rise up to take revenge. America could not elicit Respect from the Afghans, so they were trying to induce Fear.
ii. It appears as if those recruited as contractors were selected on the basis of having a congenital pre-disposition to torturing. If the person did not have the 'torture gene' he/she was not inducted.
iii. The contractors were paid more than $120'000 each per month, but they were under pressure to SHOW PERFORMANCE. Performance was measured and counted by intensity of torture inflicted and the number of civilians tortured and killed.