We have in custody an individual (a non-state actor) who has used violence with the intent of intimidating and causing fear in Americans for the purpose of exerting pressure on the decision making of the United States government. He has also indicated that he might have information of other similar events of violence against other Americans planned around the country.
According to Cheney/John Yoo, this means after we exhaust questioning him with traditional interrogation techniques, and before we put him on trial and he is convicted, Obama can order Scott Roeder's son's testicles crushed in front of him to see if he has anymore information he hasn't given us already about other persons who plan to kill abortion providers. Oh, and since Obama deemed it necessary, that act would not be "torture".
I am a 65 year old attorney. I served as a military police lieutenant during the Vietnam War. After my service, I worked in law enforcement, graduated from law school, defended hundreds of criminal defendants and prosecuted hundreds more. I have prevailed in hundreds of administrative law proceedings.
I write about the dubious legal product produced during the Bush administration justifying torture. First, I think we should dispense with the idea that torture will not produce useful information. One would only need to line up half a dozen fellows, build a fire under one and touch it off to see the result. As the torturer burned each of the wretched fellows at the stake, one at a time, I can almost guarantee some would break and talk.
Let us also dispense with the idea that torture produces what the despairing victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. Normal interrogation also produces reams of misinformation, often mixed in with valid intelligence. The process of sorting wheat from chaff is called analysis.
So I would be surprised if even the Bush administration was so inept at torture that they did not obtain useful information that saved lives. It would have been difficult from them not to. All of those arguments beg the true issue about torture. That being - is this something we do? Do we subject the helpless to psychological and/or physical pain, leaving them to writhe and scream for mercy, until they speak? My personal judgment is the same as that of George Washington as he generaled our forces during the revolutionary war. That answer is no, that is not who we are, regardless of how vile the enemy.
As for those who approved torture, that should be left to the career people at the justice department. The idea that somehow because an opinion was issued by an attorney, the attorney bears no responsibility for that opinion is ludicrous. Attorneys can be civilly liable for
In today's hearing on detainee interrogations, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attempted to defend the Bush administration's torture program. "Let's have both sides of the story here," Graham declared, saying there could be evidence that torture provided "good information." Graham then made the puzzling claim that since torture has been used for half a millenium, it "apparently" is useful:
"The Vice President is suggesting that there was good information obtained, and I'd like the committee to get that information. Let's have both sides of the story here. I mean, one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work."
One would think that having handily won re-election, Graham might be willing to do more than parrot right-wing talking points, but apparently that's too much to ask.
