Um, no. (4.00 / 1)

Of the order, you write that "it did create...a task force to study whether there are times when interrogators could, uh, torture people."  The only thing the task force is explicitly tasked to do is explore whether there may be additional interrogation methods allowed beyond the 19 that are specified in the AFM.  Drawing the inference that "Method #20" necessarily equals torture seems way premature, especially given that Obama has emphatically stated that the US shall not torture.  

Look, I'm all for holding the administration's feet to the fire when appropriate, but there is simply nothing (so far) to suggest that there is anything more than meets the eye here.  More importantly: by preemptively defining this as a "loophole", you are only giving credence to the whole Chuck Todd/Politico/WaPo narrative that Obama isn't REALLY ending torture and this is all just a ruse to appease "The Left". As Digby points out, this kind of undermines the whole strategic point of ending torture in the first place, since the rest of the world will read the press coverage and assume it isn't actually for real.   So how 'bout we give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. Or more accurately, the benefit of the near-certainty.

 

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:31:37 AM CST

Please (4.00 / 2)

Just what do you imagine these "enhanced techniques" of interrogation might involve, if they go beyond the 19 techniques sanctioned by the Army field Manual on the subject? Something more extreme, don't you think?

And of course the real problem is that it seems very unlikely that we will ever get a clear picture of what those techniques might be, should they become adopted by Obama -- I'm sure that the veil of national security will be drawn around them as they have been in the past.

Your notion that we should just trust Obama because he said "no more torture" is about as naive as you can get. Of course he wants to be able to say that there's no more torture, regardless of what he actually allows under the covers.

If Obama really, really wanted to end torture, or the perception in the world that we might countenance it in any way shape or form, it would not be hard, except in terms of political courage: he should simply say that we will abide by the Army field Manual, that there would be no consideration of anything beyond that, that if any in the military or the CIA is caught doing anything else, then they will be prosecuted.

But we aren't hearing that, are we?

Maybe you should consider whether your deep concern is to end torture or simply to defend Obama.

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:57:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

several problems with your argument (4.00 / 2)

The Army Field Manual is not a magical anti-torture device. First, I am quite sure there are plenty of countries in the world that do not torture and yet don't use the US Army Field Manual as the basis of their interrogations.

Second, it is quite possible to torture someone using only techniques approved by the Army Field Manual.

Third, there are conceivably bureaucratic and organizational reasons why the Army Field Manual may not directly transfer to other government organizations (which the executive order hints at here: "Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense.  Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises."). Perhaps it would be better for the CIA and the FBI to have there own, institution-specific set of Geneva-convention-compliant interrogation guidelines (as long as they aren't classified). I don't see how you can argue that that isn't a legitimate question.

So to me this fetishization of the Army Field manuals as the be-all and end-all of the torture debate is misguided, at best. As they seem to be the only Geneva-convention-compliant interrogation guidelines available at the moment, I'm happy that the executive order requires their use, effective immediately. But the idea there is no possible better way to conduct interrogations that the Army Field Manual seems silly to me. I am reassured by the fact that the executive order Obama signed explicitly requires the US to meet its treaty obligations for humane treatment of prisoners, and uses the definitions of humane treatment and torture from those treaties, not by the fact that Obama defines the Army Field Manual as the set of best practices for interrogators.  

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:13:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

couldn't have said it better myself (0.00 / 0)

then again, I am completely uninterested in the question of torture, and exist only to apologize for and enable the Obama regime, having been brainwashed into believing that they are doing what they said they'd by oh-so-cleverly doing what they said they'd do. Luckily, this dude sees through all that.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:28:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

While I accept that (4.00 / 2)

the Army Field Manual need not be the final word -- particularly if it authorizes techniques that can be stretched to include methods that are in effect torture -- your objection really fails to meet the nerve of my argument.

I see your argument, as stated, as being too much an Obama apology, rather than one concerned about torture. If you were concerned about torture, I think, you would have expressed a real concern about where Obama's "task force" might be heading, and why we might need such a task force, rather parsing the meaning of the Army Field Manual.

Certainly, I can't see any problem with letting the Army Field Manual as being, in effect, the upper bound on what should be allowed in terms of techniques. If, indeed, some of those techniques can be manipulated into a form of torture, then it should be ratcheted down. If this were the restricted goal of the Obama task force, that would be a good thing, but there is simply no reason to believe it. As best I can make out, its purpose is quite open-ended, with further "enhanced techniques" not by any means out of its purview. (The question again is, Why not?)

And the quote you have from the executive order says nothing about any inadequacy in the Field Manual itself in terms of techniques as it might apply to other agencies. At most it alludes to questions about authorization within the other agencies -- indeed, that executive order basically calls for the restriction to the same techniques in those agencies ("such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense".)

You go on to say "I am reassured by the fact that the executive order Obama signed explicitly requires the US to meet its treaty obligations for humane treatment of prisoners, and uses the definitions of humane treatment and torture from those treaties".

Well, of course you are reassured because you seem to think that Obama will only do good. Others may not be so sure. Others understand that it's easy to claim to be abiding by our treaty obligations, and yet be doing things that by any reasonable account are in violation of them. I'm sure that the Bush administration can give a whole course -- if not award a degree in -- how to pretend to observe the letter of the treaty without abiding by its clear intent.

And what others may particularly wonder is why he has put this task force in place if he really wants, once and for all, to put an end to torture. Stopping it decisively is not, again, a hard thing to do -- if you have the intent and political courage to do so.

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:43:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right, it is easy to end torture-he did it yesterday. (0.00 / 0)

Wow.  Seriously, have you read the executive orders he signed yesterday? I'm not sure how more explicitly he could have put an end to torture.  But I'm sure your right- it's really just part of a clever plot to do the opposite.  Or maybe it's written on invisible ink. Whatever he's up to: STAY VIGILANT.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Look, (4.00 / 2)

what you don't seem to get, and what the Bush administration relied on in its own evasions, is that the meaning of torture is in the details.

You can have a thousand rationalizations for why a given technique is not torture, though, quite transparently to outsiders, it is. Torture is conceptually mainly defined, rather vaguely, as the absence of certain features in techniques: physical or psychological pain, for instance.

But in practice that absence must be translated into positive techniques that are allowed, and those that are not. Why would, say, solitary confinement be allowed under certain circumstances, but not waterboarding? Both induce psychological pain (indeed simply being put in prison or being interrogated induce psychological pain) why is one acceptable but not the other?  

One of the great virtues of the Army Field Manual is precisely that it spells out those details in a fully public manner that all can inspect, and either agree on or disagree with. Whatever its limits, it constitutes a reasonable upper bound on what can be done. Unless human beings themselves have evolved greatly since the introduction of that manual, there's no reason to believe that it provides insufficient guidance as to acceptable techniques.

The basic fact is that Obama's task force is going to go to the very community that performed techniques of torture, and ask them what they think they need as "additional techniques" in order to squeeze information out of their detainees. That community will of course do everything they can to preserve those techniques with the maximum amount of "persuasive" power -- i.e., pain, be it physical or psychological -- to pass muster as an "additional" technique. That is the certain dynamic of how such a task force will proceed.

How will Obama answer those arguments? Why imagine that he will represent perfect wisdom, and will never allow anything a reasonable person would regard as torture? Especially if the conclusions of this task force are done under the cover of national security, why imagine that he won't go quite a good distance in compromising with this community?

Again, if Obama wanted to stop torture, and make it clear to everyone, including the community involved in torture, that it must simply end, he should simply have not have put in place this task force.

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:28:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A Manual Originalist (0.00 / 0)

Ok then.  Let's take that argument further.  If it really is true that human beings cannot evolve beyond the manual - that there is the manual and only the manual and the manual is one! - how are we to ever judge the practices of other countries that do not have this manual, and yet profess the rejection of torture.  Having not been initiated into THE 19 TECHNIQUES, how will they ever know the line between civility and barbarity?  If only there were some broadly defined CONVENTION to which nations of the world could ascribe, and to which presidents of those nations could commit themselves, in the form of executive orders.  Alas, there is only the manual.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:40:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Geneva Conventions (0.00 / 0)

The executive order Obama signed does not give the task force the ability to define torture; rather, torture is defined as per the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3. As I have repeatedly argued, and you have repeatedly ignored, the Bush administration opened the doors to torture by ruling that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees captured in the "war on terror". The Obama administration closed that door.

The executive order explicitly adopts the Geneva Convention definitions of torture (and related terms) -- so to argue that somehow this executive order permits torture seems to me to require you to argue that either a) Obama is going to revoke the executive order he just issued, or b) the Geneva Conventions are not sufficiently clear on what is torture.

If you believe that this is all a ruse, that Obama signed this executive order but included the task force so that in six months he can sign an executive order revoked this one and allowing torture, there is nothing I can say to dissuade you. Yes, we should keep a careful eye on Obama's executive orders and if there is one that revokes this one, I will certainly do whatever I can to raise an outcry. But to argue that the current executive order does not prohibit torture seems ridiculous. No executive order is permanent; even without the task force this executive order could be overturned on a whim. So that would imply that no policy Obama makes via executive order actually counts, because he could later change his mind.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:07:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right, it is easy to end torture-he did it yesterday. (0.00 / 0)

Wow.  Seriously, have you read the executive orders he signed yesterday? I'm not sure how more explicitly he could have put an end to torture.  But I'm sure your right- it's really just part of a clever plot to do the opposite.  Or maybe it's written on invisible ink. Whatever he's up to: STAY VIGILANT.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

response (0.00 / 0)

First of all, even with the most pessimistic interpretation possible, the executive order Obama signed decisively ends torture as of January 22, 2009. While we can argue about whether or not it leaves open the possibility that the US may start torturing again in the future (based on the recommendations of this task force), I hope we can agree that, as of right now, the executive order Obama signed decisively ends torture in the US.

Now, on to the main point as to why I think it is the Geneva Conventions, and not the Army Field Manual, that is important. The key determination that the Bush administration made that opened the door to legalizing torture was ruling that enemy combatants captured in the "war on terror" were not prisoners of war and not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. In executive order 13440, signed by Bush, which Obama's order revoked, Bush said the following: "On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination." The reason for this determination is that the rules outlined by the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners are much stricter than the US law against torture (as far as I can tell). Second, the argument that the Bush administration consistently made was that they wanted to use there own definitions of torture, not the definitions set forth in international law.

The executive order that Obama signed explicitly repudiates the basis of Bush-era torture policy. It rejects the claim by the Bush administration that prisoners can be designed "unlawful combatants" and thus be excluded from Geneva Convention requirements. Furthermore, it explicitly rejects the Bush administration attempts to create a "US-specific" definition of torture, by requiring that the definitions be the same as those used in the Geneva Conventions themselves.

Finally, let me say that while I have no problem with you disagreeing with my analysis of Obama's actions to date, I find your claim that I am not concerned about torture offensive in the extreme. Please do not assume I am arguing in bad faith.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:14:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do I wonder what, (4.00 / 1)

exactly, your commitment to stopping torture really amounts to?

Simple: you did not, in your first post, and do not now, express any concern over the issue of the task force, its mandate, or its likely or possible outcome.

If that task force is to consider introducing "additional techniques", and it will be taking into account feedback from the very community that employed techniques that clearly amount to torture, why expect that that is going to end well -- particularly if its product is going to be kept under the cover of secrecy?

I would be far more inclined that you care most fundamentally about torture if you saw the task force, as apparently charged, as enabling a potentially quite damaging process. I would likewise be impressed if you insisted that, at bare minimum, whatever that task force concludes and is adopted should be open to public scrutiny, as is the Army Field Manual. Torture, again, is in the details, and the virtue of the Army Field Manual is that it provides those crucial details. My expectation is that there is no constraint on that task force to make explicit and public what it recommends should be approved and what should not, and that, indeed, just as with virtually all other "enhanced interrogation techniques", it will be deemed that the adopted choices will be consigned to secrecy, lest the terrorists know about those techniques (and of course a too queasy public.)

Failing that strong expression of concern from you about the task force, I can't help but wonder what it is that constrains you from taking your argument where the moral logic would seem to go unencumbered.

In short, I see why your posts, as stated, do Obama's image a great deal of good, because it is nothing but praising of everything he has done on the matter of torture, but it does not respond in any way to the issues that the task force raises as to whether torture is really dead in the Obama administration.

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:06:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

obviously, there is no way to resolve this argument (0.00 / 0)

until the task force reports, and we see whether it is public or classified; whether it recommends techniques that would be considered torture under a commonsense definition; and what Obama does then.

Personally, I think it is extremely unlikely that Obama would choose to issue this executive order as one of his first acts in office, only to later revoke it to allow violations of the Geneva Conventions. Whatever else you think of Obama, he has tended to be fairly straightforward with what he believes (when he broke his promise about FISA, he came right out and said that he was breaking his pledge in the primary, but he thought he had good reason to).

Finally, please read and think about what the rest of the executive order means. The Army Field Manual, as I have argued, is not sufficient as a protection against torture. What is critical is that Obama has acknowledged the obligations of the US under international treaties, specifically the Geneva Conventions. This means Red Cross access to detainees, which means it is easy to verify if Obama is living up to his word.

By refusing to acknowledge the main point of the executive order, and constantly harping on a potential revocation of this order in some uncertain future, you are really minimizing your credibility. Of course it is possible that Obama will revoke this executive order in the future. You think that is possible-to-likely (for reasons I don't understand); I think that is extremely unlikely (for reasons you apparently don't understand). But that doesn't change the fact that the order as written repudiates torture clearly and explicitly, and if you can't acknowledge that I really don't understand where you are coming from.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 16:21:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Getting ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

I must say, it is almost laughable the Hannity-esque degree to which some of the folks around here now instinctive distrust Obama.  Almost.  

Needless to say, absolutely nowhere does the order refer to "enhanced" techniques, only additional ones. And the fact you feel obliged to gratuitously insert the extra adjective just proves, I think, how ungrounded the presumption of bad faith really is.  

Nor is there any reason to think the process will be secretive.  Even if you don't trust Obama in the least, or for some reason believe these orders are all just misdirection, the fact is that by signing them he has now LEGALLY COMMITTED himself and his administration to doing the very things you want him to do.  Why would he do that if he was planning to do the opposite?  Do you really think he cares that much about deceiving the OpenLeft comments section?

Glenn Greenwald is happy.  Russ Feingold is happy.  that's good enough for me.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:23:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please, (4.00 / 2)

explain to me why you believe that "additional" techniques will only be positive, quite reasonable ones? Do you really believe that when the task force starts to interview people in the intelligence and defense community who have already been engaged in the "enhanced techniques", that they will not be forcefully arguing for what they have previously been performing, and perhaps making some compromises in them in order to satisfy some vague sense that those techniques are now non-tortuous enough?

Explain to me too why you believe that the set of techniques outlined in the Army manual might not already be sufficient?

You are simply trusting that Obama will do good, and nothing but good -- that he can be trusted to see through any argument put up by those who have already engaged in torture to preserve aspects of their techniques, on the premise that they aren't really that bad. (And how hard is it to make such arguments, as did the Bush administration and their enablers -- I mean, how much worse is waterboarding, they will say, than, for example, solitary confinement? )

I repeat the point you refuse to deal with: If Obama wanted to put an end to torture, once and for all, he would not have put in place this task force, or he would have restricted its purview to ratcheting down, rather than potentially up, from the Army Field Manual.

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:01:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, no, I am no simply trusting Obama (4.00 / 2)

What I am trusting is the Executive orders he signed yesterday that clearly and specifically prohibit torture; his own repeated and emphatic declarations that he opposes torture; the repeated and emphatic declarations made under oath by his Attorney General, who will help lead the Task force, that HE opposes torture and will not tolerate torture; the NPR story I read today that quoted administration sources saying the Task Force won't consider torture; multiple civil liberties experts/Obama skeptics who believe that Obama has ended torture...Pretty much any one of the 1000 different ways Obama has said NO MORE TORTURE.  You, on the other hand, have chosen to ignore all of this in favor of one innocuous line about a task force and, I would imagine, a breathless headline on Politico.  Others can judge which of us is more gullible.

(that NPR story is here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:22:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just to clarify one point: (0.00 / 0)

It seems entirely possible to me that the CIA, having been informed that waterboarding, etc., is no longer allowed, and that they will be restricted only to those 19 techniques approved by the AFM, would want time to consider additional methods that are humane (i.e. NOT TORTURE) but not currently on the list.  Perhaps this interpretation is overly naive, but no more so than the 'loophole' interpretation is overly cynical.  Again, Obama said We Don't Torture.  He signed an order requiring that We Don't Torture.  Why buy preemptively buy into the MSM counter-narrative when there no evidence as of yet to support it?

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:39:26 AM CST

You can't use the moral argument: (4.00 / 1)

"Now, if the Obama administration adopts a loophole it may well be they torture a much lower percentage of suspects than the Bush administration. But where's the moral difference? Can you say that torturing only 1% of suspects is morally superior to torturing 10% of suspects. Regardless of the number a torture loophole says the Bush administration was right, there are some cases where breaking the law, violating international agreements, is justified."

I don't understand how you can use the above but then get so upset when we claim that the reason Israel is at fault is because the proportion of Israel:Gaza deaths were too extreme. You can't have the moral argument both ways. If it's morally wrong, it's wrong. There is no gray.

---

by: justsaying @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:52:18 AM CST

but it's more realistic, no? we do torture, and have done so for ages -- (4.00 / 2)

it's fact and reality -- and wholly immoral.

It's sorta now just a question of whether we go back to doing it secretly and/or third-hand -- using the alphabet agencies and "secret" methods, etc -- or whether we openly do it.

Most people would rather not know about it, i'd say. And have a real need to be lied to about it. They see us as "moral" and need to be deceived.

It is a "moral argument" in a very twisted and typically American way, no?

This is how we define ourselves "morally" and it's also meant to justify our actions abroad as well, no?

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:59:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What kind of argument is this? (4.00 / 1)

Does the notion of proportionality suddenly now not apply to whether a war is a just war? In fact, every sensible person understands that proportionality is one of the most essential characteristics of a just war. If, say, N. Korea were to kill an American soldier, that would not be a justification for nuking the entire country of N. Korea into the stone age -- or, for you, would it be?

On the other hand, many basic moral issues are not subject to questions of proportionality. We can't allow our government every so often to deny people the right to worship, or the right to suppress free speech, or the right to a speedy trial, or any number of other inalienable rights.

Among civilized nations, of which the US used to be a member, the outlawing of torture used to be such an absolute prohibition.

Not, of course, anymore.  

---

by: frankly0 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:15:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

i agree with you -- but we have never ever been moral at all -- (0.00 / 0)

it's totally immoral, and we do immoral and horrendous things all the time -- and always have, even before we were a nation.

so, given that -- it comes down to recognizing that, and assessing whether there are things within the basic (totally immoral, and totally not changing, no matter what) framework or options and actions and "changes" that are either better or not better. That are less orwellian or more. That don't harm people or that do. ...

It's not so much an argument -- it's simply not allowing official lies and policies (new or old) from blinding us to the immoral truth.

No matter what we think, we will continue to do horrendous and immoral things -- here and abroad -- no matter who is in power.

I'm not making an argument -- seriously. I'm saying we can't even put morality at the center of any discussion of this because it never has been -- ever. I know it's evil -- and wholly immoral -- but we as a nation do evil and immoral as official policy -- secret or not.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:29:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

also, we'll never really really know whether they stopped or changed this stuff -- (0.00 / 0)

we won't be allowed to know. And all over the world, we've set up secret facilities and sent people to be tortured by us and/or others. We don't even know who or where or what.

We will not ever be able to ascertain whether stuff really changes or not beyond superficial changes to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, etc -- by official and enduring intention and policy.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

also -- the finding 3rd countries (rendition 2.0?) thing -- (0.00 / 0)

isn't that very relevant too? Why is that even an option being considered? It means they're just being erased, and won't be tried -- or freed, no?

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:53:18 AM CST

read the actual executive order, please (4.00 / 1)

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something, but the actual executive order itself seems incredibly straightforward in its insistence that all "persons [detained in any armed conflict] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States."

Furthermore, in the definitions section it states that "(f)  "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3 [i.e., the Geneva Conventions]."

So there does not appear to be any way to construe this executive order as doing anything other than establishing the Geneva Conventions as the minimum acceptable standard of treatment for prisoners in US custody.

The so-called loophole is based on the fact that Obama is establishing a task force to study the specific issue of "whether...[the Army Field Manual,]...when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies." It is pretty hard for me to read this as a loophole for allowing torture. The whole rest of the executive order explicitly makes clear that the United States will be bound by the legal obligations outlined in the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. In order for the task force to recommend torture, Obama would have to issue another executive order that would revoke the one he just issued. No matter how cynical you are, it is hard to imagine that Obama would issue an executive order with very clear and legally binding anti-torture language and then revoke it 180 days later (the deadline for the task force report). It is much simpler to believe that it is a legitimate question to ask whether non-military departments should have their own set of legal guidelines delimited procedures for interrogation that meet the legal standards set out in the executive order, or whether the whole government should follow the Army Field Manual.

It is almost like nobody can quite believe that Obama actually means to do what he has been saying he is going to do.  

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:00:13 AM CST

Army Field Manual (4.00 / 2)

While I appreciate the zero-tolerance approach of Tremayne and expect follow-through to make sure the commission does not endorse torture in any way, it is silly to assume the Army Field Manual is the perfect description of every possible non-torture interrogation technique.  There is nothing wrong with looking into additional techniques.

This task force clearly falls into the category of "trust but verify".

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:16:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right. (0.00 / 0)

In other words, it isn't a "loophole".  At least not yet.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:30:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

but that already is the law, and was ignored, no? (0.00 / 0)

And haven't we ignored it whenever we wanted to in the past too, regardless of what our laws and other things said?

Isn't this exec order created for public national and international consumption, more than it's actually an effective or binding change of real actions on the ground?

(plus, if we take it as binding -- where's the stipulation forbidding 3rd countries from doing it on our behalf? and other needed things)

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:40:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seriously, READ THE ORDER (4.00 / 1)

Section 5(e), part (ii) requires the task force:

"(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

Really couldn't be clearer.  

http://washingtonindependent.c...

As for the idea that Obama could theoretically issue these orders and laws, then go about violating them, just as we have in the past under Bush....well, sure, that is always a possibility.  But unless you plan to personally commandeer the national intelligence apparatus and oversee it yourself, passing laws and issuing orders is about as good as its going to get.  That, and the small matter that we had and election and Obama isn't Bush.  

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:07:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"to study and evaluate" does not equal ending these things -- (4.00 / 1)

he could easily ordered all this ended immediately, but didn't.

a "review" of what should happen to gitmo detainees is not ordering gitmo closed.

"reviewing" rendition does not mean it ends.

...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:45:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

only halting those fake trials was clear -- and not permanent either -- (0.00 / 0)

nyt -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

... Mr. Obama's orders struck a powerful new tone and represented an important first step toward rewriting American rules for dealing with terrorism suspects. But only his decision to halt for now the military trials under way at Guantánamo Bay seemed likely to have immediate practical significance, with other critical policy choices to be resolved by task forces set up within the administration.

Among the questions that the White House did not resolve on Thursday were these: What should be done with terrorists who cannot be tried in American courts, either because evidence against them was obtained by torture or because intelligence is too sensitive to use in court? Should some interrogation methods remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them? How can the United States make sure prisoners transferred to other countries will not be tortured?

Members of Mr. Obama's national security team have expressed a wide variety of views on interrogation and detention policy, and there is likely to be robust internal debate before the questions are resolved. ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:48:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you being purposefully dense? (4.00 / 1)

The language clearly requires them to "study and evaluate the practices...in order to ensure that such practices comply with domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States...".   It doesn't just say, "look this shit over".  It says look it over and if you find practices that violate the Geneva Conventions, stop them. Hence that mysterious phrase "in order to ensure" and "comply with international obligations".  It isn't just a homework assignment.

Look, obviously if you're already convinced that Obama doesn't intend to do any of these things, you can find something in the language to hang your hat on.  But when read from left to right and in English, the order is pretty clear about what it requires.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:53:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no. it doesn't say what you say it says -- "stop them" is not what it says -- (4.00 / 1)

and his appointees, like Blair and others, are not saying that either -- NYT -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

...  Among the questions that the White House did not resolve on Thursday were these: What should be done with terrorists who cannot be tried in American courts, either because evidence against them was obtained by torture or because intelligence is too sensitive to use in court? Should some interrogation methods remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them? How can the United States make sure prisoners transferred to other countries will not be tortured?

Members of Mr. Obama's national security team have expressed a wide variety of views on interrogation and detention policy, and there is likely to be robust internal debate before the questions are resolved.

... Dennis C. Blair, a retired admiral and former C.I.A. official who is expected to be easily confirmed as the intelligence director by the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisted that military and intelligence interrogators would follow the same rules, but he left open the possibility that techniques beyond the 19 currently approved for military interrogators could be authorized.

Mr. Blair also suggested that some interrogation procedures would need to remain secret so potential adversaries could not train to resist them.  ...  

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:36:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't literally say "stop them"? (0.00 / 0)

Is that what you're worried about?  You think the requirement to "comply with international obligations (that prohibit torture)" means something other than "no torture" and "no rendition to countries that torture"?  Or do you just really want the phrase "stop them" in there.  I honestly have no idea what the problem is.

As for Blair, he also testified that there will be no more torture, though he was insufficiently specific and evasive on the waterboarding question. But what Blair thinks isn't the issue here.  The issue is the executive order that Obama signed, which Blair must follow regardless of what he believes, and which is - at this point - crystal clear that torture must end.  Again, read the order.

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:25:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama and the School of the Americas -- (4.00 / 1)

http://nacla.org/node/4777 --

...late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress' revision of the school's curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.

What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.

To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.

Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like, Obama's meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror. Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they'd prefer to close the facility.

Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas?  ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:52:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He doesn't oppose the School of the Americas? That changes everything! (0.00 / 0)

WTF?!?!?!?

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:57:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

do you know what we teach there? (4.00 / 1)

what the Pentagon itself says about it? that Congress continually funds it? ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:32:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I'm most concerned with what Obama does as president (0.00 / 0)

like, sign an executive order that prohibits torture.  call me crazy, but that signals to me that he opposes torture.  

---

by: oxmaster @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:31:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't worry, amberglow (0.00 / 0)

Digby has called this one already. If Obama is foolish enough to try to create a loophole (and I share your concern that he will), the spooks will leak it immediately in order to hamstring him.

That's how it works. Obama may think it's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation but the reality is if he scratches their backs and they will use it against him.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 16:11:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The only loophole we need. (4.00 / 1)

The law should be the law, and if you break it, you go to prison. But there is an implicit loophole built into that: if you believe that what you are doing is important enough,  you should be willing to go to prison for it. That should be the standard, for everyone up the line: is this important enough that you are you willing to go to prison for doing/ordering it (and turn yourself in)? If so, go ahead. If not, then don't.

---

by: pualo @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:46:53 PM CST

Absolutely (not that it matters in this case) (0.00 / 0)

If I was thrown into the neo-con fantasy of their being a ticking nuclear bomb and I had the guy who put the bomb there, yea, I might break the rules if all else didn't work.

But I'd be willing to go to prison to save millions of lives.

Also, presidential pardons exist for exactly this reason.

Fortunately, Obama's executive order has nothing to do with looking for loopholes, so none of this matters.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 15:25:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lock it into legislation (4.00 / 1)

Executive Orders are good, but adding solid legislation is even better. From the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL):

With these executive orders, Obama took a dramatic step toward restoring this country's image in the world and lifting up a core value of respect for the human rights of all. We congratulate the president on making these orders among his administration's first items of business, and we will look for him to promote their intent.

The work is not done, however, until Congress adds its voice to the process. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) has introduced legislation to outlaw the CIA's coercive interrogation program, require the government to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end secret detentions, prohibit interrogations of detainees by government contractors, and require greater cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Passing this bill would reaffirm Congress's commitment to compliance with international laws against torture and would restore enduring legal standards.

Take Action

Urge your senators to cosponsor the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act (S. 147): http://action.fcnl.org/r/26470/73313/. If one of your senators is already a cosponsor, express your thanks and urge her or him to encourage other senators to sign on to the bill.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:04:37 PM CST

List of cosponsors (4.00 / 1)

here. Right now only 3 co-sponsors joining Senator Feinstein:

Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV]
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]
Sen Wyden, Ron

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:14:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

we all need to push our Senators on this -- (0.00 / 0)

we need clear legislation on all this (even if it will be ignored, tragically)

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:38:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]