Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does the U.S. Have a New, Kinder Image?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has created a new vision of the United States of America. A softer, kinder, more loving picture has emerged. Humble, contrite and repentant of the past, this great country has fallen on its knees and admitted to past wrongdoing. It has gone against international ideology.
The wrongdoing has been admitted in the Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee Report, released by Feinstein who chaired the committee. The Republican government after Sept. 11, 2001, under President Bush, used Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. These, according to Feinsein, are against the basic values of the American people. She was speaking for every American.
Instead of treating enemy prisoners of war with compassion, the CIA had subjected them to torture. That this was done in an attempt to obtain crucial information necessary for the protection of the U.S. is considered no excuse.
No excuses have been accepted that on Sept. 11 there had been an outside attack aimed deliberately at the hearts of the military, financial, and governmental centers of the country. Such attacks are usually seen as an act of war, and the government and military intelligence of that time reacted as one would expect. Responsible for the defense and safety of the citizens of America, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques were used in an attempt to extract information that would protect the country and the lives of Americans.
Apparently the prisoners held by the CIA were subjected to the Five Techniques. These were developed by British security forces when dealing with the Irish Republican Army during the time of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Southern Ireland IRA were considered the enemy, as they were fighting against the continued alliance between Northern Ireland and Britain.
The Five Techniques are prolonged wall-standing (in uncomfortable positions), hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink. The goal is to disorientate the enemy prisoner so that his defenses will be lowered, and he may give information of use to the “good guys.” Having seen these techniques applied in many films, we all have a good idea of what they’re like. Not a pretty picture, admittedly, but often it seems they are effective. They are especially effective if used with a “bad cop, good cop” routine. Even I know this from TV and films.
Since time immemorial there has been a problem with what to do with prisoners of war. No doubt the first wee homo primates had that problem, probably resolved by taking no prisoners. We don’t know what Homo Erectus, the Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and any other homo primates around at that time, did, but probably the same. I have some Neanderthal DNA, so I can tell you for sure that Homo Sapiens interbred with their neighbors. Quite a thought that they might have interbred with prisoners of war. I couldn’t find a reference to the treatment of prisoners of war anywhere in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. But no doubt this was something that concerned the ancient Greeks. Without doubt the Romans had a similar challenge, and so on up through the ages.
Coming to closer times, in 1976, The European Commission of Human Rights ruled that the Five Techniques amounted to torture. In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that although the techniques were “inhuman and degrading” and breached the European Convention on Human Rights, they were not torture in the true sense of that word. In 1987, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1 appears to disagree with the Court and defines torture for us. Torture is, as follows: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession…
Sensibilities are becoming ever more refined, and the highly-paid lawyers of the United Nations are constantly upgrading the International Law accordingly. Not being an international lawyer, I am not sure if that definition of torture is binding in any way, and if so, on whom.
These increased feelings among the people at the UN for the conduct of war are being felt by the military in the UK. Apparently interrogators are not allowed to shout in prisoners’ ears, or thump their arms or fists on the table. One has to realize that such actions might hurt the feelings of the prisoners of war. It is said that these antagonistic behaviors do not result in any useful information. The picture springs to mind of a English interrogator sitting down with an enemy prisoner of war over a tray of tea. He offers the prisoner a cup of tea, as he asks nicely for the highly crucial information that is needed. This kindly behavior will so impress the prisoner, that he will immediately give his interrogator whatever he needs to know. If this works, the CIA could do the same with cups of coffee.
We seem to be in the midst of a conflict between the idealists who believe in the ideologies of the United Nations versus the pragmatists who believe in reality. If it comes to following the pronouncements of the highly-paid priests (och, sorry about that!) lawyers of the United Nations, or dealing with the reality of needing vital facts such as names of enemies, to protect your country, about which would you prefer your government be concerned?
Published in General
Of course, you are correct, Zafar. It really does show the attitudes of so many Progressives. They are sanctimonious do-gooders, who think the rest of us are heartless, greedy, materialistic, “beyond the pale”, Conservatives. This last as a bad word.
Fabulous, Simon! I am cheering you on because you are saying, straight to the point, what I have only been implying.
Got to go! Will read this link when I get back.
Wedgies are a juvenile prank in which one approaches the person who is to-be-tormented, reaches within the edge of the lower vestments, grabs the undergarment at two points and lifts quickly and with vigor, thus potentially “wedging” said undergarment betwixt the gluteals.
Even spies are entitled to the detaining nation’s version of due process. Before we were a nation, Major Andre was court martialed for espionage. I think people misunderstand the purpose of the various international treaties and agreements. The purpose is to mutual agreement between the signatories as to who falls into what categories and what rights and protections they are due by belligerents. How we deal with unlawful combatants is primarily a master of US law.
Derrick Simmons. I wondered if you realized that the heading was tongue in cheek or sarcastic? Sometimes, humour or sarcasm does not translate.
Read it now, Tom! Great article. I’ve signed up for reports.
Ouch! Hey, couldn’t that be called torture?
In the modern United States, those juveniles who might be thinking of giving wedgies obviously have to be re-educated . They need to be told that it is not kind. It is not American to be so mean to another person. Hey, have those lawyers at the United Nations heard of this. More grist for their mill.
Och, of course you are correct, Steve. If laws are reasonable and understandable, they perform a function. It is when they are applied according to the letter of the law that they may create a problem.
In the case we are discussing here, they are being applied according to the letter of the law, for political purposes.
Didn’t someone say, by a female dog?
Actually, it’s simple assault.
American prisons are hell holes, where the authorities allow way too much to go on. I think we agree on the important stuff regarding American prisons.
But the word, torture has already been expanded by the left. We shouldn’t make the same mistake.
Not to sidetrack this conversation but a topic for another day is why don’t Republicans get behind prison reform? That could be both morally and “politically” correct.
Yes, except it probably would fall into modification/elimination of the WOD. Some states have already obviously legalized pot, while others now are suing them for that. This all could get really interesting.
And, of course, it would hardly answer your question, something that is worth answering.
This report has had zero impact on what the rest of the world thinks or does not think about the US.
What the Senate Committee wanted, and what they got, is Republicans on television “defending torture”, and worse than that, “defending torture even though it maybe didn’t really work”.
Call me a barbarian, but I’m fine with what the CIA did after 9/11. Di Fi’s report is a parting shot at Republicans and the Bush administration before she loses her chairmanship. Let’s not forget that the Democrats were being briefed just like the Republicans and they had nothing to say about it while it was happening.
Yes, but some ill-considered court cases quickly rectified that. We now officially do not honor the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war which depend upon a golden-rule logic to operate. We have decided that we are smart enough that we no longer need to win, and the bad guys are comfortable with that.
What I hear you saying, and I totally agree, is that the Republicans have to become what they seem to honest to be. They need to be wilier like a fox, and recognize the traps the other foxes out to get them are luring them into.
Good point, Adriana! You are saying it like it is!
This furthers what Zafar and I have been saying about the Republicans needing to become wilier. It is possible to be too honest and judge everyone else as being just like that too. Honesty doesn’t always pay!
Here is an email I sent to Senator Feinstein on December 11 (being as I am a constituent of hers):
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Such a sad day for America, but even sadder for your personal legacy of public service. I have read many commentaries on the Senate Intelligence Committee Majority Report, the most recent by former FBI Director Louis Freeh published in the Wall Street Journal. I think what he says is very important and on point. A reader comment to that story sums up my feelings about this quite well:
This is not the way your legacy should have been — but it seems to be the one you have chosen.
Regretfully yours,
I have no empathy for those that took pleasure for whatever reason from the 9/11 attacks. Whether it was the planners or those that were met on the battlefield after the attack. Diane Feinstein defends the indefensible. There is no moral argument that can be made for those that paved the way for the beheading and crucifixion of men, women and children. This is not the first time in history that savagery has had to be met with savagery.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” – George Orwell
Diane Feinstein may apologize all she likes, but her apology is a betrayal of a nation that at the very least enriched her, and her husband. There will be no apology from me.
So sad! Oh! How the mighty have fallen!
Agreed! Senator Feinstein claims too much when she says she speaks for all Americans. She certainly didn’t speak for this Canadian.