CIA 'Torture'

[notmyeye]

I think our fundamental disagreement comes down to this (and please correct me if I am mistaken):

You believe that our treatment of detainees is based off of a give and take relationship. That is to say that we give certain treatment to those that fight while following a certain code of conduct and we give a different form of treatment to those that do not. However, in all but rare, unsanctioned, and isolated cases, the treatment is humane and is not torture. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth by any means, this is what I understand your position to be - please correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe that all detainees of the United States should be treated equally and in accordance to (or even exceeding) the provisions set forth in the Geneva Conventions. I think with a strict set of uniform standards, events such as those at Abu Ghraib would not have happened. If an interrogation method is even questionably ethical or legal (ie waterboarding, hooding, stress positions, etc) it should not be implemented.




I think it's a pretty honest difference, and you make a really good case for your position. Our opponents have no problem killing civilians and their very nature makes them difficult to root out. This causes us to rethink both our strategy and our methods in dealing with these enemies. My take on the matter is that it seems (to me) like we are changing who we are as a country in fighting them, and that seems like what they're after.

[Maggie]

notmyeye,

I think you come closer to answering my initial question in your post above but what I am really interested in is why/how you have come to your conclusion. By the way, I appreciate your decorum. To disagree without being disagreeable is in short supply.

The purpose of my previous post was not to argue for or against “torture” (I have done that at length in multiple posts in this thread) but, rather, to demonstrate that the narrative you originally relied upon, which I attempted to summarize, is fundamentally flawed. And it appears my summary was accurate, as you did not object – please know the last thing I ever intend to do mischaracterize an argument of an opponent or, to put it another way, create a stawman. This tactic, which in my judgment demonstrates a profound weakness (it is also dishonest), is used too frequently in political discussions/arguments by all sides, and incidentally quite often lately by our President.

Now with regard to your recent missive you write:

You believe that our treatment of detainees is based off of a give and take relationship.

This is far too simplistic. But you continue..

That is to say that we give certain treatment to those that fight while following a certain code of conduct and we give a different form of treatment to those that do not. However, in all but rare, unsanctioned, and isolated cases, the treatment is humane and is not torture. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth by any means, this is what I understand your position to be - please correct me if I'm wrong).

This part is basically correct. We, meaning the United States as well as other countries, do treat captives differently based upon whether they fight according to a basic code of conduct. That is the whole point of Geneva and the basic Laws of War that predated Geneva. Notwithstanding, incidents of prisoner abuse still happen whenever there is armed conflict – as I stated before, it is endemic to warfare and not particular to any country, in general – there are, of course, exceptions but those countries choose not to abide by those standards.

Moving on you state:

I believe that all detainees of the United States should be treated equally and in accordance to (or even exceeding) the provisions set forth in the Geneva Conventions. I think with a strict set of uniform standards, events such as those at Abu Ghraib would not have happened. (emphasis added) If an interrogation method is even questionably ethical or legal (ie waterboarding, hooding, stress positions, etc) it should not be implemented.

….Our opponents have no problem killing civilians and their very nature makes them difficult to root out. This causes us to rethink both our strategy and our methods in dealing with these enemies. My take on the matter is that it seems (to me) like we are changing who we are as a country in fighting them, and that seems like what they're after.

With all due respect, I think you are going a little too far – possibly farther than you intend. I don’t think your premise logically or practically can lead you to your conclusion. Now, I have voluntarily conceded on multiple occasions in this thread that a respectable moral argument can be made against inflicting any sort of pain or discomfort on a prisoner. What this discussion is really about is where to draw the line in this regard and that is where we appear to disagree.

You question whether the use of these techniques crosses a moral line, which is an appropriate and important question. I am not sure I believe they do—any more than I believe going to war when national security requires it crosses a moral line or puts us at odds with our principles.

In essence, what you appear to be advocating is a moral equivalent of radical pacifism. Pacifism holds that killing is always wrong, therefore war—official killing by the state—is always wrong as well. While this is noble it is also a bit naive. Standing against this view is the Judeo-Christian tradition of "Just War" theory, which holds that there are circumstances under which war is permissible and indeed necessary, and ways in which it can be ethically conducted.

The same holds true for interrogations. There are circumstances under which coercive interrogations are both permissible and ethical—and the CIA program made an effort to meet these just war standards in the following ways:

First, the program is, or rather was, limited. EITs were used as a last resort, and on only a few individuals who had unique information about planned mass casualty attacks, and who were withholding that information.

Second, the program was restrained. Of the many thousands of people captured, only a small number were taken into the CIA program. Of those, and even smaller number had enhanced interrogation techniques used on them. And of those, only three were subjected to the worst of these techniques -- waterboarding. The CIA, in my judgment, attempted to use the least coercive method necessary to get information.

Third, the program was necessary. The individuals being questioned were often the only source of the information we needed or were the only way of confirming information we had obtained (which is critical) —there was no other way to find out what these terrorists are plotting and planning.

Finally, the program was for a moral purpose. These techniques were not used to extract confessions or punish individuals for wrongdoing. They were used as a last resort, to get information needed to protect society and the lives of the innocent.

So I would argue that the program was not only necessary but it was moral and it was ethical. You see it can be defended not just on pragmatic grounds, but on moral grounds as well. The use of EITs did not “change who we are” as a Country and, in any event, I suspect that is not the ultimate goal of our enemies. :)

You may want to extend the protections afforded by Geneva, and even go beyond, to individuals who did not qualify for such protection – and that is fine. But in so doing, you also must accept the moral and practical consequences of the purity of your position.

[JohnnieBallgame]

Maggie,
Please, run for President!

My view point is that of an old soldier. If I am going to be "crucified" for my treatment of people who are trying to kill me and harm my country, why would I bother taking them alive as prisoners?

IMHO, the unintended consequence of the political "witch-hunts" regarding this matter is that fewer prisoners/detainees will be detained. If I were the one in "combat" with them, my guess is that one of us would not survive the battle. I'm fairly certain that if I were to be captured, I would be beheaded, then my lifeless body would be dragged through the streets by my testicles. Does any of this sound familiar? It all happened to US servicemen well before Guantanamo Bay.

If the Islamo-fascists who want us dead, desire to be martyrs....I am a charitable man who is quite willing to arrange the meeting with their 72 virgins. If it is my fellow Americans or the terrorists, my choice is easy. Soldiers don't have time for debate and/or sometimes even reasoned judgement. We tend to follow orders of leaders we trust, and do our best to survive and get back to those we love.

Notmyeye and Maggie, I am enjoying your discussion....keep it up, it's healthy for us all in the manner you two are engaged! :)

[notmyeye]

notmyeye,

I think you come closer to answering my initial question in your post above but what I am really interested in is why/how you have come to your conclusion. By the way, I appreciate your decorum. To disagree without being disagreeable is in short supply.

I appreciate your very well thought out and respectful replies. Even though we don't agree, I am very much enjoying this discussion.

The purpose of my previous post was not to argue for or against “torture” (I have done that at length in multiple posts in this thread) but, rather, to demonstrate that the narrative you originally relied upon, which I attempted to summarize, is fundamentally flawed. And it appears my summary was accurate, as you did not object – please know the last thing I ever intend to do mischaracterize an argument of an opponent or, to put it another way, create a stawman. This tactic, which in my judgment demonstrates a profound weakness (it is also dishonest), is used too frequently in political discussions/arguments by all sides, and incidentally quite often lately by our President.

I think your summary was pretty accurate in encapsulating my views on this issue.

There are obviously some things that we can all agree are torture and we are all universally in opposition to them. I don't want you to think I am labeling anyone as being pro-torture, and if I have said something directly or indirectly to that effect I apologize. I generally believe that those in power will do what they think is right and necessary for the country. I happened to disagree with the previous administration on many issues (and still disagree with the current administration on a few issues), but I think right or wrong they are all genuine in thinking that they are doing the right thing.

The Bush administration might not have re-defined POW/'enemy combatant' per say, but they did fundamentally change our treatment of foreign nationals in our custody. I think we can all agree that just because the government says something is legal or illegal, that doesn't make it necessarily moral or immoral. So while congress, the president, or the UN make regulations regarding what is humane or inhumane, that does not necessarily make them correct.

...

With all due respect, I think you are going a little too far – possibly farther than you intend. I don’t think your premise logically or practically can lead you to your conclusion. Now, I have voluntarily conceded on multiple occasions in this thread that a respectable moral argument can be made against inflicting any sort of pain or discomfort on a prisoner. What this discussion is really about is where to draw the line in this regard and that is where we appear to disagree.

I think you are correct in pointing out that in war there are some people who will cross 'the line' as to what is moral, and that is generally not a reflection on those higher up. You're also correct in that I don't want to overstate my claims; I don't think detainee abuse could ever really be 100% stopped. I still contend that with firmer guidelines in place, an egregious abuse, such as the one at Abu Ghraib, would not take place. The policy of EITs opened this box up. Those soldiers thought they were doing the right thing by softening their captives up for interrogation, caught up in the moment and under terrible stress, they went too far.

You question whether the use of these techniques crosses a moral line, which is an appropriate and important question. I am not sure I believe they do—any more than I believe going to war when national security requires it crosses a moral line or puts us at odds with our principles.

I want to be clear in that I fully support our nation's right to defend itself when threatened. I was elated with our military's rapid success against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They had it coming. I don't want to get into the Iraq war subject (that's another thread I suppose), but my view on that is since we're over there already we need to do the job right.

In essence, what you appear to be advocating is a moral equivalent of radical pacifism. Pacifism holds that killing is always wrong, therefore war—official killing by the state—is always wrong as well. While this is noble it is also a bit naive. Standing against this view is the Judeo-Christian tradition of "Just War" theory, which holds that there are circumstances under which war is permissible and indeed necessary, and ways in which it can be ethically conducted.

I don't want this issue to become a strawman. I am no pacifist. There are plenty of things in this world worth fighting, killing, and dying for. For a different perspective, consider this: I am and atheist and as such do not believe in an afterlife, good or bad. In my mind, this life is all that we have and there is neither punishment nor reward waiting for us. I agree that there are such things as just wars, but (as I'm sure we can all agree on) they should be selected carefully.

The same holds true for interrogations. There are circumstances under which coercive interrogations are both permissible and ethical—and the CIA program made an effort to meet these just war standards in the following ways:

First, the program is, or rather was, limited. EITs were used as a last resort, and on only a few individuals who had unique information about planned mass casualty attacks, and who were withholding that information.

I don't think the self-limiting factor of the program makes it ethical. From a purely factual standpoint, either the treatment itself is morally just or it is not. The number of times it is employed should be irrelevant.

Second, the program was restrained. Of the many thousands of people captured, only a small number were taken into the CIA program. Of those, and even smaller number had enhanced interrogation techniques used on them. And of those, only three were subjected to the worst of these techniques -- waterboarding. The CIA, in my judgment, attempted to use the least coercive method necessary to get information.

If waterboarding doesn't occupy an ethical grey-area, then why limit its use? If it's perfectly safe and moral, why not use it all the time? Why not use it on US citizens? I fully agree with you that we didn't waterboard many people, but we did waterboard the same three people a lot. I know that they were three really bad guys, but I think such treatment is beneath the United States.

Waterboarding is believed to be effective because it simulates drowning. The person literally feels like they are dying. This is why I find it morally objectionable: moral people don't threaten murder in cold blood. At that point those being interrogated will say or do anything to make it stop. Can you really trust the intelligence gained from people who have every reason to tell you what you want to hear? This is aside from any moral questions regarding the procedure.

Third, the program was necessary. The individuals being questioned were often the only source of the information we needed or were the only way of confirming information we had obtained (which is critical) —there was no other way to find out what these terrorists are plotting and planning.

I agree that something should be done to gather this vital intelligence, but I don't think this is the answer. There is no (released) evidence of waterboarding thwarting attacks. I think in the long term, waterboarding will have made us much less safe. These people hated America before, and now they have a reason to cling to and to try to get even more followers. In this scenario I think we would all be better served by taking the clear moral high ground.

Finally, the program was for a moral purpose. These techniques were not used to extract confessions or punish individuals for wrongdoing. They were used as a last resort, to get information needed to protect society and the lives of the innocent.

Doing something to protect society or innocent people does not necessarily make the action itself moral. It seems as if this issue is a clear case of the ends justifying the means. That line of logic is rife with ethical pitfalls. Cold hearted utilitarianism of that sort, while logical at face value, makes us gloss over the cruel and sometimes inhumane things that can and have been done to provide fleeting feelings of security.

So I would argue that the program was not only necessary but it was moral and it was ethical. You see it can be defended not just on pragmatic grounds, but on moral grounds as well. The use of EITs did not “change who we are” as a Country and, in any event, I suspect that is not the ultimate goal of our enemies. :)

You may want to extend the protections afforded by Geneva, and even go beyond, to individuals who did not qualify for such protection – and that is fine. But in so doing, you also must accept the moral and practical consequences of the purity of your position.

I have yet to see compelling evidence as to the efficacy of EITs and waterboarding. It seems like a knee jerk reaction to 'do something' to say we've prevented countless terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11. I don't like the thought that our country has knowingly and willingly pushed people to the brink of death hundreds of times only to bring them back and do it all over again. No matter how malevolent the person is, I don't think anyone deserves that. If the evidence is sound enough, try them and imprison/execute them, but don't toy with them.

[ABC]

Right ... Don't toy with them

But let them be involved in killing civialns

Obama should just release all of the memos

[notmyeye]

Hey, ABC, adults are speaking.

[Maggie]

notmyeye,

By taking each step individually you, probably unintentionally, distort the totality of the argument I am making. Each of the factors I discussed make up, a truncated version, of my argument for the pragmatic and morals grounds of my defense of the Bush Admistration’s actions: (1) The program was limited; (2) it was restrained; (3) it was necessary; (4) it was for a moral purpose. It is the combination of the four not any single factor individually that provide my foundation.

Due to the fact that I have a little more time than usual this response is going to be long so hang in there (I actually was rudely interrupted with real work – so I didn’t get a chance to proof this very well). I am going to begin with some statements of yours that I agree with, and, therefore we can put them to rest:

I generally believe that those in power will do what they think is right and necessary for the country. I happened to disagree with the previous administration on many issues (and still disagree with the current administration on a few issues), but I think right or wrong they are all genuine in thinking that they are doing the right thing.

This was a pleasant thing for me to read as it rare that a person of the “Left”, for want of a better term, will acknowledge that the actions of an Administration they disagree with were in fact well intentioned. Good on you. Of course, you are correct to point out:

….we can all agree that just because the government says something is legal or illegal, that doesn't make it necessarily moral or immoral. So while congress, the president, or the UN make regulations regarding what is humane or inhumane, that does not necessarily make them correct.

I agree but I find it odd that you would write this, for reasons I won’t go into right now. You continue:

You're also correct in that I don't want to overstate my claims; I don't think detainee abuse could ever really be 100% stopped. I still contend that with firmer guidelines in place, an egregious abuse, such as the one at Abu Ghraib, would not take place. The policy of EITs opened this box up. Those soldiers thought they were doing the right thing by softening their captives up for interrogation, caught up in the moment and under terrible stress, they went too far.

I have already argued that I believe this to be flawed logic. Again, correlation is not causation. This is basically a slippery slope argument. These types of arguments certainly have their place, but if you are going to creditably make them it is important to identify how A creates a slippery slope that will lead to B in order to use B as an argument against A. Personally, I think the slippery-slope metaphor can be almost entirely useless -- an impediment to thought rather than an aid to it. If someone wants to say that A makes a worse B inevitable, they should say so and explain why. If someone wants to say that acceptance of A makes it impossible in principle to reject B, they should say that and explain why it matters. Furthermore, those that are inclined to reject these and similar propositions, should not simply rest their case on the unreliability of slippery-slope arguments in general – which I don’t think is something I can be accused of doing.

That being said, I don’t really think one can take the position that anyone trying to use B as an argument against A has to prove that A will inevitably lead to B. Surely if A dramatically increases the likelihood of B in some demonstrable way, and B really would be disastrous, that's something to take into account when considering A.

So, while I certainly understand your concern, I suppose I am not clear on why you believe the use of EITs, in the limited manner in which they were used, lead to prisoner abuse. As I have already stated, prisoner abuse is endemic to warfare itself and not unique to this particular conflict. Indeed far worse actions have been taken against captives in past wars, including by American soldiers. In short, I don’t think you are making a creditable argument that EITs increased the likelihood of prisoner abuse in any demonstrable way.

Anyway, you continue and address the fact that I inferred that what you are arguing is, in essence, a form of radial pacifism:

I don't want this issue to become a strawman. I am no pacifist. There are plenty of things in this world worth fighting, killing, and dying for. For a different perspective, consider this: I am and atheist and as such do not believe in an afterlife, good or bad. In my mind, this life is all that we have and there is neither punishment nor reward waiting for us. I agree that there are such things as just wars, but (as I'm sure we can all agree on) they should be selected carefully.

Fair enough and I was not trying to mischaracterize your position and your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is not important. However, you previously contended that Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the moral equivalent of the use of EITs – well, specifically waterboarding. You also previously stated:

I believe that all detainees of the United States should be treated equally and in accordance to (or even exceeding) the provisions set forth in the Geneva Conventions.

As I already noted Geneva holds that POWs may not be subjected to any penalties or inconveniences whatsoever for refusing to disclose more than name, rank, and serial number. Put more simply, if a POW (which, again, the individuals we are discussing are clearly not) does not want to voluntarily answer your questions then they are to be sent to their cells or whatever and housed for the duration of the conflict. Is that really how you would have handled this situation because you draw a very bright line. You may not be a pacifist but in this context, I think it is fair to say you are very close to one.

Moving on you address my argument by individually discussing the four factors I set forth, beginning with the fact that the program was limited in scope:

I don't think the self-limiting factor of the program makes it ethical. From a purely factual standpoint, either the treatment itself is morally just or it is not. The number of times it is employed should be irrelevant.

The “self-limiting factor” in and of itself would not justify the use of EITs and I did not simply rest my case on this factor alone – which is how it becomes relevant to the overall argument.

Whether the use EITs, as they were used in this case, is morally just or not is not a simple issue. Nobody thinks it's ever torture to get bonked on the head with a Nerf bat. Everyone agrees a hot poker in unaccommodating places is always torture. We can all agree that certain interrogation techniques such as electrocution, amputation, dismemberment, etc. should never be used under any circumstances. Within this broad range, arguments over what is or is not torturous are to be had.

Your statement: “From a purely factual standpoint, either the treatment itself is morally just or it is not.” I see this position taken a lot and find it a bit ironic because it smacks of a moral absolutism that many on the Left often accused President Bush of asserting. For example, his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric was too "black and white."

This inconsistency—or hypocrisy, if you're so inclined—is itself instructive insofar as it demonstrates that almost all arguments, including political arguments, boil down to moral absolutism at some point. It's just that we have disagreements about where we should be absolutist and where we should make compromises with necessity.

Hence the need for making distinctions. Making distinctions is the first step toward making choices. If you can't tell the difference between option A and option B, or are unwilling or unable to recognize the difference, you cannot make serious choice between the two.

You move on to discuss my second point about restraint by stating this:

If waterboarding doesn't occupy an ethical grey-area, then why limit its use? If it's perfectly safe and moral, why not use it all the time? Why not use it on US citizens? I fully agree with you that we didn't waterboard many people, but we did waterboard the same three people a lot. I know that they were three really bad guys, but I think such treatment is beneath the United States.

Waterboarding is believed to be effective because it simulates drowning. The person literally feels like they are dying. This is why I find it morally objectionable: moral people don't threaten murder in cold blood. At that point those being interrogated will say or do anything to make it stop. Can you really trust the intelligence gained from people who have every reason to tell you what you want to hear? This is aside from any moral questions regarding the procedure.

First, restraint is an important factor when you are discussing the use of, what we can agree, can be harsh techniques. Second, waterboarding as it was used by the CIA is “safe”; however it is also purportedly very unpleasant. In fact, we know that the CIA went to great lengths, under Justice Department guidance, precisely to avoid severe harm. This included advising the captive that their life was not in danger. Their purpose was to solicit information, not to inflict torture. Waterboarding does simulate drowning; however, the manner in which it was conducted by the CIA is not the equivalent of threatening to kill a captive – by, for example, putting them on their knees, placing a gun to their head and pulling the trigger with an empty chamber.

With regard to your point about the accuracy of information that may be obtained through these methods, I previously addressed this in a prior post in this thread and I think it is worth repeating:

Maggie wrote:
You should distinguish between the use of certain techniques to gain a confession and the use of these techniques to obtain actionable intelligence quickly. The point of the interrogations at issue, for example, was not to get "false confessions" (such as the Soviets, North Vietnamese, et als - routinely did) or confessions of any kind. It was get intelligence you can check against other intelligence. I think it is reasonable to assert that those interrogated say many false things, but they say true things too, which can be verified. This is a point which almost always gets ignored.

Furthermore, in this case I think it is important to note that these particular subjects believe, as a religious matter, that is permissible to provide information when they individually have reached a point where they can no longer resist the psychological and physical hardships of their interrogation. Obviously, it then becomes an interrogator’s job to push the subject to his limits so that cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? Probably not, considering the belief system of the subjects our interrogators dealt with and will deal with in the future.

Again, I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the "ineffective" line is a convenient cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise. It is a canard that only distracts from the relevant moral question and burnishes the already high gloss of sanctimony coming from certain quarters.

Now back to you:

I agree that something should be done to gather this vital intelligence, but I don't think this is the answer. There is no (released) evidence of waterboarding thwarting attacks. I think in the long term, waterboarding will have made us much less safe. These people hated America before, and now they have a reason to cling to and to try to get even more followers. In this scenario I think we would all be better served by taking the clear moral high ground.

True no public information has been released that would verify that the use of EITs helped stop a terrorist attack or attacks. Which, of course, raises the question of why our elected officials decided to tell only part of the story – but I am not going to go down that road right now. Look, a lot of creditable people have come forth and claimed the use of EITs did produce actionable intelligence. Furthermore, I believe the President himself has reserved the right to authorize the use of these techniques, if necessary. Why would he do that if these methods have no particular use? Also, would it even make a difference to you if evidence is produced that EITs provided actionable intelligence?

With regard to the argument that waterboarding made us “less safe”. This, in my judgment is a very difficult argument to make. I would argue that success swells the ranks of terrorists far more than any negative publicity about waterboarding. These people don’t hate us because of the use of EITs nor do I think a good argument can be made that its prior use provided any additional motivation.

You continue on with the “moral purpose” part of my argument:

Doing something to protect society or innocent people does not necessarily make the action itself moral. It seems as if this issue is a clear case of the ends justifying the means. That line of logic is rife with ethical pitfalls. Cold hearted utilitarianism of that sort, while logical at face value, makes us gloss over the cruel and sometimes inhumane things that can and have been done to provide fleeting feelings of security.

I can agree with your first sentence but I also think you are being too simplistic. The second sentence bothers me a bit. You are not, I hope, seriously arguing that the ends never justify the means, are you? If so, we will have difficulty – this is one of my pet peeves so to speak. The ends certainly can justify the means – sometimes. I’ll give you an example. We can agree, I’m sure, that shoving an old lady is wrong. Take two men. Say one man pushes an old lady into the way of an onrushing bus, and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of an onrushing bus. Is the point about the two men that they’re the type to push old ladies around?

Anyway…moving on you state:

I have yet to see compelling evidence as to the efficacy of EITs and waterboarding. It seems like a knee jerk reaction to 'do something' to say we've prevented countless terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11. I don't like the thought that our country has knowingly and willingly pushed people to the brink of death hundreds of times only to bring them back and do it all over again. No matter how malevolent the person is, I don't think anyone deserves that. If the evidence is sound enough, try them and imprison/execute them, but don't toy with them.

Again, I have addressed this at length above. This about where to draw the line. This about making choices. This is about making hard and unpleasant choices. No one would or should contend that they are happy that this is or was necessary. You appear to still attempt to draw very solid lines in the sand – and I am not sure that is appropriate. There are other factors to consider besides the relative comfort of an enemy combatant.

[Maggie]

In light of the new information released to the public, I thought it might be interesting to get everyone’s take on this issue. A couple of debate topics:

Resolved: That the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques was unnecessary and would never be justified under any circumstances.

Or in the alternative:

Resolved: That the Attorney General’s decision to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the CIA’s interrogation program is appropriate.

I am really interesting in reading everyone’s personal thoughts on these issues and why and how those arguments are formulated. So I would ask that you refrain, as much as possible, from citing to editorials, etc. (pro or con). Citations to legal authority, treaties, etc. to back up an argument is, of course, preferred – if you think it is necessary.

[Maggie]

Vindicating John Yoo - Bush lawyers are found to have acted ethically, unlike their accusers.