Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
"For all of its well-deserved reputation for pragmatism, American popular culture frequently nurtures or at least tolerates preposterous views and theories," writes Gen. Michael Hayden in a column in today's Wall Street Journal. "Witness," Hayden writes, "the 'truthers'....[and] the 'birthers.'"
Let me add a third denomination to this faith-based constellation: interrogation deniers, i.e., individuals who hold that the enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence.
Maybe popular culture has proven too tolerant of birthers and truthers. But popular culture, as anyone as professionally observant as Gen. Hayden must surely have recognized, isn't at all interested in deniers. No, denying the usefulness of enhanced interrogation is the preoccupation of the mainstream media, in particular of the New York Times. Just get a load of this, from a May 4 Times editorial:
There is no final answer to whether any of the prisoners tortured in President George W. Bush’s illegal camps gave up any information that eventually proved useful in finding Bin Laden....most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means. No matter what Mr. Yoo [Ricochet's own John Yoo, who, like Gen. Hayden, has been standing up for enhanced interrogation] and friends may claim, the real lesson of the Bin Laden operation is that it demonstrated what can be done with focused intelligence work and persistence.
It isn't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or the New York Post or any other outlet of popular culture that indulges the fantasies of deniers, and Gen. Hayden simply has to know it. If you're going to roll up a newspaper to smack somebody on the nose, General, then for goodness's sake smack somebody who deserves it.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Peter, you're quite right. Haydn is too much of a gentleman, perhaps, to have noted that the cover for the torture-never-works crowd has been provided by John McCain.
May '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
I still am baffled by the idea that we should allow mistreatment of prisoners in any manner. Even if it's not called torture, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter what information might be gleaned, it is not worth it. Prisoners should be sequestered and kept secure and safe and in the case of the terrorists, should be held for the duration of the war against us, but never mistreated. They don't need ice cream and cupcakes, they can live on the most basic food and living conditions, but never be abused.
It's not about what they are, it's about what we are. It doesn't matter that they don't observe these standards of treating prisoners, it matters only that we do. How else do we keep the moral high ground?
Mar '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
He's right in that the majority of Popular Culture is Liberal. And probably the majority of young people, who get their news from NPR and the Daily Show.
He maybe could have phrased it better, though. He misspoke, as they say, these days.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Skyler: I still am baffled by the idea that we should allow mistreatment of prisoners in any manner. Even if it's not called torture, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter what information might be gleaned, it is not worth it. Prisoners should be sequestered and kept secure and safe and in the case of the terrorists, should be held for the duration of the war against us, but never mistreated. They don't need ice cream and cupcakes, they can live on the most basic food and living conditions, but never be abused.
It's not about what they are, it's about what we are. It doesn't matter that they don't observe these standards of treating prisoners, it matters only that we do. How else do we keep the moral high ground? · Jun 2 at 7:14am
I cannot disagree more. What is wrong is to allow Americans or other innocents to die because of some extra-legal standard of treating unlawful combatants. We should do everything the law allows to get every piece of information from these men that may help save lives.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Your position is certainly honorable enough, but it involves making terrible sacrifices--sacrifices of information. Would you be happier if Osama bin Laden were still alive? Because, if the government had adopted your position, declining to subject Sheikh Khalid Mohammed to any rough treatment, Osama almost certainly would be.
Jun '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Skyler: I still am baffled by the idea that we should allow mistreatment of prisoners in any manner. Even if it's not called torture, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter what information might be gleaned, it is not worth it. Prisoners should be sequestered and kept secure and safe and in the case of the terrorists, should be held for the duration of the war against us, but never mistreated. They don't need ice cream and cupcakes, they can live on the most basic food and living conditions, but never be abused.
It's not about what they are, it's about what we are. It doesn't matter that they don't observe these standards of treating prisoners, it matters only that we do. How else do we keep the moral high ground? · Jun 2 at 7:14am
I don't know if Ricochet has any terrorist readers, but you've given them a good laugh today.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
etoiledunord
Skyler: I still am baffled by the idea that we should allow mistreatment of prisoners in any manner. Even if it's not called torture, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter what information might be gleaned, it is not worth it...
It's not about what they are, it's about what we are. It doesn't matter that they don't observe these standards of treating prisoners, it matters only that we do. How else do we keep the moral high ground?
I don't know if Ricochet has any terrorist readers, but you've given them a good laugh today.
Before we so roundly dismiss Skyler's views, I'd like to point out that he's an officer in the Marines currently serving in Afghanistan -- someone with "skin in the game" in the war on terror.
That said, I too disagree with you Skyler, but am intrigued to know if you've found that many/most of the men you serve with feel the same way about enhanced interrogation (assuming you characterize enhanced interrogation as abuse).
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Peter Robinson
Your position is certainly honorable enough, but it involves making terrible sacrifices--sacrifices of information. Would you be happier if Osama bin Laden were still alive? Because, if the government had adopted your position, declining to subject Sheikh Khalid Mohammed to any rough treatment, Osama almost certainly would be. · Jun 2 at 8:55am
I'm with Skyler. I don't buy "the ends justify the means" argument. It is either right or wrong to torture. The end. I very much appreciate philosophy professor Christopher O. Tollefson's arguments in this regard.
Jun '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
If we do it to our own people in special ops training, it's not torture. Physical torture is torture. The psychological torture of feeling like you're drowning when you're not, is extremely unpleasant, sleep deprivation is extremely unpleasant, but you recover when it's over. We have humane limits on whatever we do. But when a few thousand innocent Americans are intentionally burned to death by these delicate prisoners, that's much more unpleasant. That's what would be hard to live with.
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 9:24amJan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I'm with Skyler. I don't buy "the ends justify the means" argument. It is either right or wrong to torture. The end. I very much appreciate philosophy professor Christopher O. Tollefson's arguments in this regard. · Jun 2 at 9:09a
The question is not whether it is right or wrong to torture but whether the techniques used constitute torture. Obviously Prof. Yoo is the resident expert here on the issue and he makes a compelling case that they are not and it is a case that I have yet to see seriously rebutted.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Klaatu
The question is not whether it is right or wrong to torture but whether the techniques used constitute torture. Obviously Prof. Yoo is the resident expert here on the issue and he makes a compelling case that they are not and it is a case that I have yet to see seriously rebutted. · Jun 2 at 9:28am
Klaatu,
Excellent point. I found Cliff May's arguments on The Daily Show to be persuasive in this regard.
Apr '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I'm with Skyler. I don't buy "the ends justify the means" argument. It is either right or wrong to torture. The end. I very much appreciate philosophy professor Christopher O. Tollefson's arguments in this regard. · Jun 2 at 9:09a
I disagree. Every society makes important decisions every day in different areas weighing the ends vs means equation. From Normandy to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to Korea to Vietnam and beyond, the US has and always will be pressed into making unpopular decisions. We will die when we decide the easy path is best!
The soul of a society is not formed in one controversial decision, but is read as a tapestry of these difficult decisions over years. Those who claim the US has lost its soul due to one event or decision need to take a few steps back and absorb the whole picture. IMHO, the narrative of the history of the US is filled with gut-wrenching, but ultimately correct decisions that have have created a historical trajectory of justice, freedom and wealth that is unparalled in the world history. Slavery or the civil war or rendition can never destroy the entire story.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Since you seem to be suggesting that I do favor torture, Mollie, I have no choice but to reply. Which I do, as follows:
1. The ends obviously justify the means, over and over again in our society. Dominique Straus-Kahn, for instance, is now under house arrest in Manhattan. The system of justice has no right to do that to the man--none whatever--unless the end, keeping him from skipping town before trial, justifies it.
2. The ends, just as obviously, do not justify all means. What John Yoo and others have done is to work very, very hard to decide what means are indeed justified and what are not.
CONT'D BELOW....
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 12:35pmRe: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
3. If you disagree with John's conclusions--including his finding that "enhanced interrogation" is indeed permissible--then where do you yourself draw the lines? May a terrorist be imprisoned? Even though imprisonment causes him acute psychological distress? If so, why? If a terrorist may be imprisoned, may he also be deprived of sleep before being questioned? If so, why? If he may be deprived of sleep, may he also be subjected to water-boarding? A procedure that, while very, very unpleasant--it engages the same involuntary reflexes as does actual drowning--causes no physical harm?
4. "It is either right or wrong to torture" is a purely tendentious statement. In our society, torture is wrong by definition. The question--the entire question--is not whether torture is right or wrong but what constitutes torture.
John Yoo and others have, as I say, devoted hundreds of hours of research and deliberation to answering that question. In my judgement, the burden of explanation falls not on them--they've already explained themselves, at length--but on those who disagree with them.
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 12:41pmJan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Peter Robinson:
If you disagree, where do you yourself draw the lines? May a terrorist be imprisoned? Even though imprisonment causes him acute psychological distress? If so, why? If a terrorist may be imprisoned, may he also be deprived of sleep before being questioned? If so, why? If he may be imprisoned, may he also be subjected to water-boarding? A procedure that, while very, very unpleasant--it engages the same involuntary reflexes as does actual drowning--but that causes no physical harm?
Peter,
As you've often stated, waterboarding is incomparable to the fiendish methods of torture used by communist and other totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. However, those methods do not constitute the minimal standard for torture. And even if a single instance doesn't count as torture, 183 of them probably do, in the same way that drunken text message from an ex doesn't constitute harassment but 183 of them probably does.
I continue to be amazed at the deference you and others offer Professor Yoo et. al. who insist that -- in the heat of the moment no less! -- everything they did was essential but that none of it over reached. It beggars belief.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Peter Robinson: 3. If you disagree with John's conclusions--including his finding that "enhanced interrogation" is indeed permissible--then where do you yourself draw the lines? May a terrorist be imprisoned? ...
4. "It is either right or wrong to torture" is a purely tendentious statement. In our society, torture is wrong by definition. The question--the entire question--is not whether torture is right or wrong but what constitutes torture?
That is an extremely serious and complicated question, one to which John Yoo and others have, as we all know, devoted hundreds of hours of research and deliberation. In my judgement, the burden of explanation falls not on them--they've already explained themselves, at length--but on those who disagree with them. · Jun 2 at 12:22pm
Edited on Jun 02 at 12:39 pm
Peter,
Thank you, this expresses exactly what I wanted to say but could not state clearly enough in 200 words. I guess this is why you wrote speeches for the greatest president of the 20th century and I did not.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
I agree with point 4 (and apologize for my clumsy torture phrasing) -- that definitions are important. That's why I opposed the way the "torture" memos were handled -- they were doing their best to define torture so that we didn't do it. I respect that.
I linked earlier to Tollefson's piece, which I found helpful. He begins with the normative claim that human life and health is an intrinsic, and indeed, a basic, human good. And the possibility of damage or destruction to those is an evil to be avoided insofar as the damage is willed. He adds that the principle is compatible with acts that damage life: self-defense, the decay of the body brought about by intense study, or the possibility of ill health consequent upon incarceration. But in each case, if done appropriately, these are only side effects. Enhanced interrogation, otoh, is an attempt to cause damage for a particular end. And that is why it is to be avoided.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Enhanced interrogation, otoh, is an attempt to cause damage for a particular end. And that is why it is to be avoided. · Jun 2 at 1:15pm
I must disagree again. The enhanced techniques were specifically designed not to cause any real or lasting damage. They were intended to be unpleasant and discomforting but not harmful.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Tom Meyer
However, those methods do not constitute the minimal standard for torture.
Then the question remains, what is the minimal standard for torture. Prof Yoo laid out his case in great detail What is yours?
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
I recommend that people read the book of my former White House colleague, Marc Thiessen, who points out that there are many things reported as fact that aren't. One of them is the idea that KSM was waterboarded 183 times.
It is not an easy call. John McCain, as we all know, thinks it torture. But as Marc points out, two brave and decent Americans who were in that prison with Sen. McCain -- Jeremiah Denton, and Bud Day -- say it isn't. Mr. Day is also a recipient of the Medal of Honor. That counts for something too.
Ends do not justify the means, but they are not irrelevant. In all such measures, we ask whether the means that might be used, including waterboarding, are proportionate to the ends -- lives saved, wars brought to earlier conclusions, bad guys prevented from killing more innocents. When I weigh a process that saved many man lives, helped kill Bin Laden against the fact that it was used on only 3 people, for a limited period of time, within strict guidelines, leaving no permanent damage, it does not seem a morally insensitive calculus.