Rudy on torture.
At an Iowa town-hall meeting, Linda Gustitus, president of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, put a couple of questions to America’s mayor. Noting that Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey had “fudged” when asked whether waterboarding is torture, Gustitus said:
“I wanted to ask you two questions,’’ she said. “One, do you think
waterboarding is torture? And two, do you think the president can order
something like waterboarding even though it’s against U.S. and
international law?’’
Mr. Giuliani responded: “Okay. First of all, I don’t believe the
attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think
Democrats said that; I don’t think he was.’’
Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”
Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it
is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the
circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been
defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have
described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if
that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be
done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because
I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I
hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always
describe it accurately.”
(Applause)
“If I can’t figure out that there’s been a significant media bias
against this war, then I shouldn’t be running for president of the
United States.”
(Applause)
This is a dodge. There are two definitions of waterboarding, a very old form of torture–neither one was made up by “the media.” And neither is secret. One: a prisoner is bound to a board and repeatedly lowered into water to the point of drowning. Two: a prisoner is bound to a board, which is tilted so that his head is below his feet; then fabric is pulled across his mouth and water is poured on his face to the point of drowning. (The latter is more common.)
In his repetition of the meaningless mantra “we do not torture,” Rudy sounds like President Bush. But can anyone extract a useful definition of the term from Rudy’s ramble? He wants to sound common-sensical by pointing out the “delicate line” between “aggressive questioning” and torture–but nothing he says does anything to clarify where the line is. He was provided with one of the most obvious examples of torture by Gustitus, and he danced around it. “It depends.” No it doesn’t. I’m afraid so-called liberal media bias doesn’t cover this one, Rudy, no matter how much applause it garners. Waterboarding is as old as the Inquisition. The United States has prosecuted those who have used it. The longer we pretend not to know torture when we see it, the farther down this dangerous rabbit hole we go.
Update: for those whose stomach isn’t strong enough to read to the end of his circular monologue, have a look at Rudy’s concluding remarks–equal parts hilarious and frightening.
“I have known every American president since Gerald Ford. I knew
Richard Nixon, but before he was president. I met him, I didn’t know
him. I can’t say I knew Richard Nixon. But I’ve known every American
president since Gerald Ford. Some Republicans, some Democrats. I can’t
think of a one that would ever want to see somebody tortured. Also
can’t think of a one that wouldn’t have the courage to make some tough
decisions to protect the lives of the American people. And that’s the
kind of person you have to have as president of the United States.”
I knew Richard Nixon, too. Well, I met him once in the mid-1990s. I got off on the wrong floor in the Capitol Building, and there he was with Bob Dole. We shook hands. Wouldn’t call us close. Actually, we barely touched. I wouldn’t even call it a shake. More of a brush. And I don’t think he would remember me. If he were alive. Anyway, it was well after he had those offices broken into. You know what, forget I even mentioned it. Keep America safe.
A very evasive answer for a former U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York.
He must be running for president…
Apropos of this, check out SBC honcho Richard Land’s completely unambiguous interview with Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57631/page/1
It is clearly an ABR (Anybody But Rudy) campaign, and it’s not their discomfiture with torture. One could read this as the Southern Baptists and related Evangelicals carrying the Catholic bishops’ water. One wishes Land et al were more discomfited by other issues as well. Then again, Land is talking about doctrine, not politics.
It is a moral jumble.
Well, maybe people do have different definitions. You say, “fabric is pulled across his mouth and water is poured on his face to the point of drowning.”
But the way that I’ve heard it described, it’s not accurate to say that water is poured on someone’s face to the “point of drowning.” More typically, water is poured on their face for a few seconds and it generates the total panic of a drowning sensation without ever actually putting the person in danger of drowning.
Anyway, here’s a video of a guy getting waterboarded — voluntarily. http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399 Even though it was voluntary and he could have stopped it at any time, I found it very disturbing on a visceral level, and blogged about it a while back. After that, one of my law school classmates who had been in the military emailed me with these comments:
BEGIN QUOTE OF EMAIL BUT CAN’T OTHERWISE DEMARCATE IT GIVEN LACK OF HTML HERE
Stuart — Just read your comment on waterboarding. I can’t help but mention the fact that waterboarding’s presence as an integral part of US military training has been completely ignored (as far as I can tell) in the discussion of this practice. I have many, many friends that were waterboarded as part of the POW resistance training program the USMC used in the mid-nineties. (I was not subjected to it because as a line infantry officer, I was not thought a likely candidate for being taken prisoner; when things go badly, line infantry officers generally die instead of getting taken prisoner. However, anyone who was expected to operate behind enemy lines, like pilots and reconnaissance types, had to go through the training.)
In fact, our classmate ________ (who you probably know [STUART: Yes.]) waterboarded himself when he was working on the Church report on interrogation techniques; he concluded that he would talk immediately, as has everyone I have known who has undergone this treatment. This highlights one of the amazing things about waterboarding: it is basically impossible to resist, yet does no lasting damage (as opposed to, say, pulling out someone’s fingernails), assuming it’s administered correctly. END QUOTE OF EMAIL BUT CAN’T OTHERWISE DEMARCATE IT GIVEN LACK OF HTML HERE
I emailed my classmate back with some concerns, and here are his responses:
BEGIN QUOTE OF EMAIL BUT CAN’T OTHERWISE DEMARCATE IT GIVEN LACK OF HTML HERE
I would respond by saying that we don’t shoot troops in the kneecaps in training, we don’t use thumbscrews in training and we don’t pull out people’s fingernails in training. Why is that? Because those treatments all do lasting damage to the recipient. On the other hand, US military POW resistance training routinely uses sleep deprivation, temperature change, and waterboarding. The reason these get used is because even though they can be highly, highly unpleasant, they don’t do any lasting damage to the recipient. They all also seem to have very positive results in getting people to talk. Waterboarding is unique because it works so quickly, so in the “ticking time bomb” scenario, it’s especially valuable. But I don’t see a meaningful distinction between waterboarding and sleep dep/ temperature change (anyone who has been seriously sleep deprived, e.g. Darkness at Noon, or experienced real cold, knows how unpleasant that treatment can be). I look at it as our military does this in a controlled, highly thought-out manner to our own troops, and doesn’t consider it treatment that your average 23-year-old Marine can’t handle; why would we see it as treatment that your average insurgent can’t handle?
* * *
Also, I should note that I am not 100% sold on the coercive techniques outlined above, but it is striking to me that among all the media horror about waterboarding, it seems to have been totally ignored that we do this to our own troops all the time.
You also asked about an innocent guy who would say anything to make it stop. That’s a problem, no question. I think in order to use any of these techniques you would have to meet some threshold for believing that the person had crucial information. That’s why it’s essential that this all be done in an out-in-the-open, highly thoughtful way, and not in the sub-rosa way that the McCain approach (“we’ll make these techniques illegal, but we won’t charge people who use them in really important times”) would encourage. When people can put their heads together and determine whether someone is of a level that warrants this treatment, it will decrease (but not eliminate) the chances of innocents being waterboarded. END QUOTE OF EMAIL BUT CAN’T OTHERWISE DEMARCATE IT GIVEN LACK OF HTML HERE
I’m hesitant to post about the topic here, of course, and I’d like to make it clear that I don’t support waterboarding (as seen in recent news stories, authorities too often target the wrong people), but it’s a perspective worth considering nonetheless.
Stuart,
That waterboarding is used to train U.S. personnel doesn’t make it all right. Obviously, such training is conducted in a controlled environment in which the intent is not to extract information, so it cannot compare to the way it has been used to torture prisoners for hundreds of years. That said, some commanding officers have found in training that waterboarding is so effective that it broke morale, so they stopped using it.
In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. He was sentenced to 15 years’ hard labor. It’s not the same as sleep deprivation, because it can kill you. Not that sleep deprivation cannot qualify as torture.
P.S. Relax about the HTML, will you?
I have said it here but apparently not often enough, namely, that the Evangelicals are doing better witnessing than us when it comes to condemning torture. Rudy is really getting ludicrous with his lies. First, egregiously with the NRA and now on torture and saying the media is at fault for condemning the war.
He also entered the peodphilia fray by hiring an accused pedophile priest on his staff at Giuliana partners. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1
In addition the priest shares a waterfront condo with his pastor.
Does the fact that a church has the completeness of salvation make torture ok? Again the decibel level compared to right to life.
This discussion shows why this debate goes nowhere. Torture is illegal. The problem is what constitutes torture? Giuliani is absolutely correct that whether some form of physical force or coercive technique is torture is ultimately factual, and specifically so.
Look at the case Grant cites – Yukio Asano. In that case, Asano tied down the prisoners, while guards kicked and beat them, sometimes burning them with cigarettes, and poured pitchers of water directly in their noses until they passed out. Moreover, he did this repeatedly, and even more importantly he did it to people who had a protected status under international law – whether this constituted torture or not it violated international law. The question is, are agents of our government doing this, or something else?
In other words, the facts matter. The fact that some form of waterboarding is used to train service members, while it does not guarantee it is not torture, is certainly some evidence that at least some types of the technique are not torture – which legally requires there be “prolonged mental harm.”
It seems to me that many who play the “torture” card in fact believe that there should be no force or coercive techniques used. Since they know most people won’t accept this position, they use the “torture” label but refuse to accept, as Giuliani points out, that some techniques may be unpleasant and still not be torture.
Very disturbing stuff.
I wonder if more people oppose waterboarding and other forms of torture than oppose the death penalty. I wouldn’t know how to find the answer to that question, but it would be interesting to find out.
If I were asked what my reasons are, I would only be able to come up with two:
1. Watching the waterboarding video positively gives me the willies.
2. The authorities too often finger the wrong person. See, e.g., http://patterico.com/2007/10/21/was-a-passage-omitted-from-a-recent-second-circuit-opinion-for-security-reasons-or-to-cover-up-material-embarrassing-to-the-fbi/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
At the same time, I have to admit that if someone told me, “We’ve captured Osama alive; he’s not talking about his associates and his plans, but give me a piece of cellophane, a pitcher of water, and 15 seconds; he won’t be physically harmed in any way whatsoever, but he’ll be happy to talk” — I don’t know that I’d have a convincing argument against that.
Stuart,
I think that part of an argument against waterboarding Osama would be that he is created in the image and likeness of God, and that certain acts offend against human dignity in such a way that they are always wrong.
One such act is the exterior manipulation of human freedom.
Well, right, but as readers of this blog have been told time and time again, such distinctively Catholic arguments aren’t necessarily going to be persuasive to, let alone enforceable upon, non-Christians.
Heh.
I think most people have some moral connection with at least the idea of innate human dignity. Freedom shouldn’t be coerced. (“The image of God, Mr. CIA Man”–you don’t have to say that.)
Kathy,
This is why, as I said above, I find discussions about this topic so frustrating. I agree with you that there are acts that offend human dignity such that they should not be done on anyone. The question is, what are they?
It can’t be an act that is the “external manipulation of human freedom.” Heck, as a prosecuter I did this all the time. The most common method being, “Well Sgt Bagadonuts, your buddy Sgt Schmedlap has already told us that attacking that girl was all your idea, so why don’t you tell us why you did it.” Of course, Schmedlap had lawyered up and we had no idea who did what. Isn’t than an external manipulation of human freedom? It certainly isn’t torture.
Is someone who plans on harming others “free,” in the sense that he has a moral right, to withhold information that can prevent the harm?
Sean,
You were putting pressure, and, I take it, tricking. But that’s not the same as sheer coercion. Torture is truly forcing someone to do what they don’t want to do.
You may well ask, what’s the difference between pressure and forcing? One answer here is that forcing comes from intense physical distress.
-see Andfrw Greeley’s column of October 24 on being disheartened in America, includin gour approach to torture. (unfortunartely, I’ve lost the link.)
-Guiliani style Catholicism leaves much to be desired amd his approach here is hardly compelling.
Bob-
I don’t think there is a “Guiliani-style Catholicism.” His faith, by his own admission, plays no role in his public or private life. While I realize the main-stream media continually refer to his religion, I think they do it more to please their audience.
Kathy said:
“I think that part of an argument against waterboarding Osama would be that he is created in the image and likeness of God, and that certain acts offend against human dignity in such a way that they are always wrong.”
And what meaning exactly does the term “human dignity” have when applied to OBL, who has stated publicly that he takes joy in the slaughter of the women and children of Western civilization?
Bob,
Jesus told us not to pass judgment before the time. He’s the Son of Man. It’s His responsibility, not ours.
Bob Nunz wrote: “See Andrew Greeley’s column of October 24 on being disheartened in America, including
our approach to torture. (unfortunartely, I’ve lost the link.)”
Here’s the link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/616721,CST-EDT-greel24.article