It's a full time job ...

...keeping up with your nuanced sense of what is and is not torture.

First to your comparison of our military's interrogations to Saddam's behaivor. These are YOUR words as of your most recent post:

At no point should any rational adult that manages to come across this blog think that I am accusing the US Army or any other institution of this Government of crimes that compare to what Saddam managed in his 25 year reign of terror… but YOU do, and on a regular basis, too. Why is that?

Whay is that? Are you serious? The following are your words in the post before last:

I was saying that it seems mighty difficult for the US to condemn Saddam for using torture at Abu Ghraib for nearly 25 years, when we are using the same actions against suspected terrorists ourselves.

You wrote this!! These are your unedited words of the post before last and you dare accuse me of somehow misenterpreting what you wrote? This is plain as day, "when we are using the SAME actions against suspected terrorists ourselves." What is unclear about that? Tell me. I expect, nay demand an immediate retraction of your assertion that Iwas somehow irrational in my conclusion. In that sentence you were comparing and flat out ACCUSING our armed forces of the same torture that Saddam engaged in at Abu Graib when he controlled it. I tried to give you an out by saying that perhaps you constructed the sentence poorly in writing it and you didn't mean it this way in your head. Isn't this the same tripe you claim Dick Durbin and John Kerry need to correct with apologies to the US military? Look again at the way you wrote it! READ THE DAMN THING! How could any rational human being visiting this blog come to any other conclusion then that you believe our service men are participating in Saddam style torture? ONLY because I know you did I attempt to assign this sentence to a "mistake" in writing. But how could anyone else, whom doesn't know you, come to any conclusion other than you are comapring our military's actions with that of Saddam?

I contend that the even actions at Abu Graib regarding the scandal weren't on the level of Saddam's actions, but at least if you had compared that scandal to Saddam you would have been isolating the comaprison to those few who were later charged. But you indicted every officer and enlisted man whom ever served at Abu Graihb, and by extension our entire Armed forces with the term "we."

What you wrote was plain and clear and probably would have got an elected offical apologizing to every camera he could get his mug on, or censured or worse.


On torture ...

Sleep deprivation and “water-boarding” are methods currently employed by the US military to interrogate prisoners… and both are illegal in the “civilian” sector. I submit for your review:

First off, why are you quoting civilian law when we are discussing a military matter? It's meaningless. It no more legally apllies than does the laws in Norway, or Tibet or Australia. Why not quote them? That was just a waste of time. The military has a code of miltary justice with its own judicial system. Quoting civilian law is a distraction. And while we're on that subject ... the "forbidden fruit" argument of confessions made under duress was nonsense as well. You're referring to a judicial sytem - namely our civilian criminal court - that has no juristriction or bearing on these events whatsoever. Not to mention, we don't use the information gathered in these cohersed interrogations to build any type of criminal case - we use it for battlle! For stopping bombs! For goodness sake Titus, why are you going down this path of citing law and events that do not apply and are not happening?

Now, further in your post I see you come back to the civilian laws and use them to demonstrate some sort of moral "conflict" in that we have one set of laws for the civilians, and one for the military ...

this kind of “conflict” with what the US is perceived to say by the world at large, and what we actually do, compromises our ability to lead the world in the War on Terror… or any other effort.

and ..

When the US is put in a position of discredit because of the actions of a few “bad apples” at a place like Abu Ghraib, it compromises our ethical position across the board. I’m not suggesting that we are “wrong” or “without morals”… only that it makes us look especially silly to the rest of the civilized world. Our ability to function within an international community hinges on our “reputation” as dependable, trustworthy, honest and ethical in our foreign affairs and in our implementation of justice.

First, we are supposed to have different laws for the military than the general public. I see no "conflict" in our morals at all if you mean to compare our civilian standards to our miltary standards. Furthermore - please, stop with the Kerry-esque worrying about what the world thinks of us. It's juvenile. France, Australia, and Canada have all had elections in the post Iraq invasion, post Abu Graihb, post GITMO etc. They all elected conservative (for them anyway) US friendly parties and candidates. And let me remind you, we will ALWAYS lead the war on terror, no matter what anyone thinks (unless Kucinich or Ron Paul are lected president). The world doesn't have to like us (although the majority may - I don't have polling data on the world), but they do have to respect us, and most of them need us. If you think scandals such as Abu Graihb or our interrogation methods, or GITMO have damaged our credibility to the point of our not being able to "lead" in the war on terror, then show me the evidence. I mean, all of those things have already occured - so where has it hurt our ability to lead? Ecomomic ties to the US? Please, not one nation has recinded or backed out of trade agreements - contrarily they're banging down our door. Militarily? Who has challenged our might or even our posture to the point of infringing on the US military's ability to do its job? Who? Where is this loss of leadership or moral authority being evidenced at? Where? Show me. You, as was John Kerry, are full of shit on this "compromises our ability to lead" garbage eminating from Abu Graihb, GITMO, water boarding, etc. It is a false charge, so either pony up the evidence or withdraw it - period. No more empty platituides on this issue.

And by the way, our abilty to "function" within the international community hinges on our capital and military might - not making sure evryone thinks we are a swell bunch of boy scouts. They have, do and will continue to do business with us because it makes them money and our military is the lone superpower in the world. REALLY, I feel like I'm talking to an idealistic 7th grader here. And I say that with shock because I know you are not. What the hell has got into you? The world does business with us because they approve of our high moral repuation? Come on T. I happen to think we do have a shining moral repuation, but I don't for an instant think THAT is what enables us to do business in the world. Our economic engine and military - that surpasses every other nation on earth and can protect their sorry asses - that's the reputaion we trade on.


Let me get back to "torture" for a minute. Waterboarding is not "torture." It is a miltarily legal, non lethal method of soliciting information from terrorists or terror suspects caught in the feild of battle. It is wrapping in plastic a man's head, then pouring water over his face until the drowning reflex is triggered and the person feels the threat of death. What you described was not infact water boarding, it was the Chinese water torture method. Sleep deprivation is for disorientation purposes. At GITMO they also read Harry Potter books for hours on end to the prisoners (true story) and use loud music, and cold cells. And these non-lethal, legal, effective actions do not inhibit our world leadership ability, commerce or moral authority - and if you truly believe they do, then show me where. And don't give me the rhetoric of a Spanish president, show me where in dollars, man power, or authority has the US government suffered a real loss.


Until such time as you, or someone else better able or more informed, can explain the need to allow such glaring conflicts to exist between what we “say” and what we “do”, then I’ll ask you to refrain from your sarcasm and disdain, and limit yourself to voicing your opinion… in the same manner I am.

Please don't chastise me on how to properly relay my opinions. I have had the pleasant experience of being called, "meathead", and "dumb ass", accused of talking out of my ass, told I didn't know how to read, and generally verbally assulted. So, bite me, okay.

On the other. There is NO glaring conflict in what we say and what we do. The military coherscion tactics are perfectly legal and effective. We have suffered no real loss of leadership or moral authority (outside of empty rhetoric) of our actions at GITMO, Abu Graihb, or water boarding. We have always had different standards and expectations of our military in the midst of battle versus our civilian law. The Iraqi govrnment, Iran, North Korea, the Sudan, NONE of these nations are going to increase or decrease their move towards liberalization and democracy because of any of those events. PERIOD. They have their own agenda and will highlight things such as Abu Graihb for propoganda, nothing more. They will however, increase or decrease their move towards liberlaization dependiong on where we put our money and military. That's what matters to them.

And this is to the immature aspect I was referring to - we could wake up tomorrow with a 100% efficient criminal justice systmem. A military that NEVER employs cohersed interrogation, and have (as a country) a 100% clean bill of health in terms of hypocracy (as you seem to feel we do not already), and that wouldn't make one damn bit a difference on whether nations around the world listened to us or not. They listen to us, we have influence, because of our economic and miltary might. They either need us, are scared of us, or are scared we won't protect them - that's the grown up world we live in. The world where terrorist masterminds need water boarding, where not one US soldier engages in sanctioned torture or killings, unlike the enemy we face, meaning that even with water boarding we occupy the high moral ground.

The new president of France, France mind, you ran on an openly US friendly platform and recently became the first French president in 30 years to vacation in the US. Perhaps our biggest western critic, both in goverment and society, has been that nation. This is completely contrary to your assertion that our credibility or influence has suffered.

Now, do you think they suddenly began to "like" us? Did our credibility in their eyes suddenly become gold plated? Of course not. Their ecomomy is in the tank and their military is a joke and guess what? They decided they need us more than we need them - and suddenly they're friendly. Until you can cite me a real and demonstrable way our ability to "function" or "influence" the world has diminished, then please stop espousing these empty jr high level plattiudes.

Our influence is intact even with waterboarding, GITMO and Abu Graihb. We have no glaring conflicts of "what we say and what we do" because the military, in the midst of battle, has different laws than does or civilian population. And given our record of fighting to give other people freedom, rather than ourselves real estate, remains in tact up to this moment, and all of the people interrogated by our military walk away from the event without so much as a mark - we still maintain our moral authority over the enemies and critics we face.




Am I saying that all such incidents (water boarding, sleep deprevation etc) should cease and stop at once? Or that they have no place in the military or intelligence gathering communities?

You do this sometimes. You go on so passionately for one side that you talk yourself into a circle and end up on the other side. You say it damages our credibilty, leadership ability, moral high ground, but yet you don't want it to stop. Man, how do you wrap your mind around that level of inconsistency?

Look, you are one of the smartest guys I have ever met, and I am privlideged to call you a friend. I just think that on this issue of "torture", I would describe it as coherced, non lethal interrogation, you are simply being naive. The military has repeatedly said "this works" and specifically cited Kalid Sheik Mohammad. I also know of no document in which the CIA (or any other US inteligence agency) has countermanded that claim of success and decried it's use. I think YOU are in a quandry because you believe it goes against our morals as you define them, and yet you understand (per the sentence above) they are neccessary. And being in that quandry is fine, just in the mean time don't then tell me it doesn't serve us in the long run; doesn't work; that the intel community has rejected it; that it's illegal for the military; or it has actually damaged our ability to lead, on anything - when you have no evidence or examples that any of that is true.

I also think you wrote that sentence comparing our boys' actions to Saddamm's incorrectly in its intention. I'm simply holding you to the same standards of clarity that you broke me in on during our early days of the Bund.


One last thing..... You have a singular ability to piss me off, Ryan… I swear!

The moment that stops occuring, this will get a lot less fun.
later buddy,
FR