I think we're at one of those points where things could slide quickly in one of two directions - which one, I don't think anyone knows.
The The New York Times > Washington > NYTimes reports the CIA used some "coercive interrogation methods" in interrogating senior Al Quaeda prisoners who were involved in the 9/11 attacks:
In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as "water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.The reactions from both sides are predictable.These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.
Jonah Goldberg:
"My response? Good. I would be far more upset to learn the CIA was being prevented from using coercive techniques against these people. Now, I don't want permanent, cruel physical torture to be used -- unless truly absolutely necessary (ticking bombs and all that) -- but if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed finds his stay with the CIA to be the worst thing that ever happened to him, I say "Wahoo! look at my tax dollars at work!"Mark Kleiman:
What makes me sick is that some of the CIA officers may get hung out to dry, but there's no probability whatever that the lawyers safe in their Washington offices who approved all this garbage -- in your name and mine -- will ever be called to account.What do I think about this? Who cares.There's a simple principle that applies here. No human being, or small group, is fit to be trusted with absolute and unreviewed power over another human being.
The real question is, what will the American people think?
It's a lock that the media will get it wrong: although I noted two days ago that the media refers to a "Drumbeat" against Donald Rumsfeld, seven in ten Americans support the Secretary of Defense even in light of the Abu Ghraib Kerry Campaign Spots scandal.
Like I said - this could tip one of two directions:
They are non-state actors, meaning they officially represent no government, which in Geneva Convention terms makes them about the same level as spies. They are not POWs -- POWs must wear the appropriate insignia of a government when captured in battle. The reason for this distinction in the Geneva Convention is precisely to prevent non-state actors from taking up arms against a nation, for the precise reasons we see today: they act as a terribly destabilizing force throughout regions in which they operate and hold civilian populations hostage when using them as screens for their attacks.Screw him.
Most unthinking leftists of the Democrat Underground stripe made up their minds in December of 2000. If Bush called the sky "blue", they'd say Blue is a neocon conspiracy.
I'd like to hope for better.
Posted by Mitch at May 13, 2004 08:26 AM