Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

So, technically speaking, and avoiding exaggeration, is GWB now a war criminal? The DOJ memo espouses a Nuremberg defense, that defense places responsibility on the "ruler". Was the DOJ penetrated by moles who wanted to point a flashing red arrow directly at GWB?

I don't want to impeach GWB -- the election is too close and we're in difficult times. I think this meme is enough, however, that the senate should be able to force Ashcroft's removal. If the senate can't do that, then it too is guilty.

If we re-elect GWB, after reading this, we will not, as a society, be able to claim "we didn't know what has happening".

Or, alternatively,

If we fail to impeach him and just wait to elect someone else in his place, we will not, as a society, be able to claim "we didn't know what was happening".

It's been interesting to watch Phil's evolution. He is a smart guy, with excellent training in reasoning, observation and evaluation of evidence. He started out wanting to believe the best of the administration, but has had that (OMHO, naive) belief ground down by the sheer weight of evidence.

His conversion (along with Kevin Drum's) gives me both faith in my opinions, and hope for our country.

There's another side to the argument. Here's my letter that was recently published in the New York Times:

"To the editor:

I cannot fault the CIA for using harsh methods to question top al Qaeda leaders (article 5/13). One might wish that America could follow rules that apply to domestic law enforcement or to traditional warfare, but al Qaeda is neither a nation nor a crime ring. Al Qaeda is a fanatical organization dedicated to savagely killing westerners without mercy.

We experienced the carnage of 9/11. We were horrified by the bombings in Madrid and Bali. We must use every means possible to prevent another such attack."

Noted lawyer Alan Dershowitz made a similar point in the Baltimore Sun, writing that

"THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."

Read his entire article at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.geneva28may28,0,3485167.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

Okay, David.

If your neighbor tells the FBI that you're in Al Qaeda, would you willingly submit to being tortured, before you've been convicted?

I think before we scream impeachment we need to answer whether the president did "issue a 'presidential directive or other writing' that could serve as evidence." Advice that he do so is not sufficient.

It should be pointed out that the Geneva conventions are based upon reciprocation--if one side does not obey the Geneva Convention, the other side no longer has to. This is a strong incentive to obey the Convnetion.

As for al-Qaeda, their very existence violates the convention. They do not wear uniforms, they use civilians as human shields, and they do not fight according to the accepted laws of war (suicide bombings, etc.).

Therefore, WE ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO APPLY THE GENEVA CONVENTION TO AL-QAEDA. There are no rules that limit what we can do to them (maybe there should be, but that's another issue).

That, however, does not apply to Iraq

Often, prisoners are recalcitrant because they have no information to give. One of the findings from people convicted then exonerated by DNA evidence is that the convicted often confessed to crimes they did not commit. Even short of torture, people will lie just to make intensive interrogation techniques stop.

Reports suggest that the US has innocent bystanders mixed in with the truly al Qaeda at Gitmo. The truth is that harsh methods of questioning can lead to false information that wastes time and effort in falsifying or verifying the information. Torturing someone who knows nothing is pointless and could result in disinformation. After one year, what these prisoners know is going to be dated. The benefits to torturing information from suspects is extremely small and the harm it can do very large.

The US tortures and kills prisoners in custody in Iraq and elsewhere. Extremists kidnap and kill Americans. Can we condemn one without condemning the other? The backbone of modern civilization is rule of law. Willful violation of rule of law leads to chaos. Torture sanctioned by the US makes the world a more dangerous place for the rest of us. The argument about discovering information that will save lives is bogus.

Jon H - you have a point. Allowing torture and indefinite imprisonment allows the very real risk of imprisoning and torturing some innocent people.

On the other hand, torture might help avert a terrorist attack that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women and children.

There's no easy answer here. Both choices are unpalatable.

Brad, please talk to Dershewitz about this matter.

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/06/prof_delong_is_.html

I notice that Brad is developing a fondness for the word "apeshit." A fondness for which I must plead sympathy.

- Josh

This is an example of the difference between "the spirit of the laws" and "the letter of the law". Lawyers are expert at getting around the letter of the law (see all the cases in tax court for the past 75 years), and have no conscience about issuing advice that is contrary to the spirit of the law -- which is one reason not to trust them with public office (all of them subscribe to the idea that they must "zealously advocate" for their client's interest, not the law -- see the American Bar Association ethics pages). That lawyers would issue advice like this is not surprising (after all, Alan Dershowitz, hardly a conservative, has mooted the question before). What would be surprising is if the memo got approval at the highest levels. At that point, it is a political, not a legal, question. And so political means, such as impeachment or the election of an alternative candidate are appropriate if that was so.

But I'd suggest that the government lawyers are printing advice like this ALL THE TIME. Certainly I became aware of a lot of it under Janet Reno, hardly one of the most repressive AGs we have had (the rules concerning contacts with those represented by opposing counsel, for example, meant to ensure that they had counsel, were routinely denied by Justice lawyers following "departmental policy" -- which evidently overruled even their profession's shaky grasp of ethics).

The point is NOT "what the constitution says" or "what the law says". It is "what we want the government to be." That is a political question, outside the competance of the timeserving lawtwisters (for whom, by the way, everything is perfectly legal -- just ask them!).

Don't start with short clauses in the the constitution, Brad. Start with the point: otherwise you invite the lawyers in.

David, and Alan Dershowitz, are terrorists. They should be held incommunicado without legal recourse and tortured until they confess, die, or are released through the actions of Spanish law enforcement. As recent behavior by the FBI shows, it is important only that suspects are captured and held (unless Spanieards interfere). Whether the correct suspects are captured is of no consequence; it matters only that twice the usual number of suspects should be rounded up. Since this is the basic policy espoused by David and Dershowitz, it stands to reason that they should be first in line to confess.

It's worth noting that those who support the president will try to shift the debate, as can be seen above. The real question is not whether the Geneva Conventions are outdated or inapplicable in certain situations, it's how far the DoD memo went in explicitly defending and authorizing illegal behavior.

If the Geneva Conventions are truly outdated and can no longer be applied in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo or other scenarios, then the U.S. has the obligation to withdraw from them, propose a modification to them, etc. To covertly decide they apply in certain cases and not in others is abhorrent and, quite likely, illegal, not to mention the damage it does to our reputation and our "moral authority."

If the rules truly do need to be changed, then change them -- openly and publicly for all to see and comment on. Otherwise, you must live by them. It's sad that this elementary bit of wisdom seems to have escaped so many in the Bush administration, as well as its supporters.

David - Why does the argument ring more true for terrorism than for wartime attacks? Surprise is critical in a war, and so torture could as easily be justified for preventing any attack as for preventing a terrorist attack. No wars in recent years have stayed "on the battleground", so civilian lives have always been in jeapordy (e.g., the Blitz in London), but we have long agreed to these rules of engagement. What is different now? I would argument that nothing is, and the Geneva Conventions should be honored, at the very least by our side even if they aren't by the other. Let's set an example for humanity, not an example for inhumanity.

Two things that make me uncertain where I stand on this issue. One, in the past a small group's potential to kill was limited to hundreds, maybe thousands. If they were to get hold of a nuke, it might now be hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. Does that change the cost/benefit calculus? I don't know. Two, assume we are hit with a 9/11 once a week for a few months. The temptation to take a whole state out of existence (i.e. nuke it) might become overwhelming, whatever you think of the merits (think Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin magnified by last 50 years of technological progress). Is it more palatable to do that rather than torture a suspect whose confession might avert such an action? Again, I don't know.

JonH and CD318 has an excellent point. For David and anyone else holding the same view, here is a joke that may make you think again (it's a well-known joke that people who has lived under dictatorship appreciate):

A zebra saw a fox that was running like mad in the forecast. The zebra ran after the fox and asked why he was running like that. The fox shouted, without stopping, "Didn't you hear? The king of the forecast has given an order that all rabbits will be spayed!" The zebra was confused, "but why are you running? you are surely not a rabbit." The fox was running even faster and the zebra barely caught his answer: "by the time they figured that out, it would be too late!!"

Impeachment? I thought (under the new Christian rules which have replaced the constitution) the only impeachable offenses were actions such as getting a blow job while in office.

Ben Langhinrichs - you make a good point. One possible answer was given by ben: the Geneva Conventions were designed to produce mutually better behavior, not merely to set a good example when it won't be reciprocated. One could argue that giving opponents the benefit of the Geneva Conventions without reciprocation would defeat one purpose of the Conventions. There would be less motivation for the opponents to follow them.

Frankly, I'm not totally comfortable with the use of torture. However, I am convinced that there are reasonable arguments for it. In particular, I don't know how to refute walons's point. Thus, talk of impeachment is ridiculous.

"Frankly, I'm not totally comfortable with the use of torture."

I don't think I would be either.

I have an idea. Anyone who says that they're not sure whether they are comfortable with the idea should be rounded up, tortured for 30 days (not to death, but maybe a little mutilation) and then released. Then maybe they can make up their mind whether they think it's a good idea or not. Oh, and no need for any reason for the torture: after all, Gen. Taguba says 70-90% of the people rounded up in Iraq were not really involved in any insurgent activity. Thus, to properly recreate the experiment, we need to recreate the randmoness of torture's application.

Bakho has a point. My high school buddy who was a military intelligence officer in Korea in the early 90s has said that torture-induced information is usually bad information, leaving aside the evil way in which it is obtained. He says ( not verified by me)that one of the best German interrogators in WWII operated by making friends with his British prisoners, several of whom wanted to sponsor him for UK residency after the war. Of course it might be hard to make friends with the al Qaeda guys.

I'm not sure that President Bush is the one to be impeached, here, on this matter. Secretary Donald "Superb" Rumsfeld may need to consider a lawyer or spending more time with his family, however. As I heard one wag put it a few weeks ago, perhaps the Senate Armed Services Committee no longer trusts Rumsfeld. In order to assure that he provides the truth, it may be necessary that he testify naked, while wearing a bag over his head. That way, we can be sure.

"On the other hand, torture might help avert a terrorist attack that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women and children."

Well, the evidence is that the Bush Administration had prior knowledge about a coming massive attack on the US by highjackers and they did not act. What makes you think that if they had obtained that info through torture they would have acted differently? Anyway, since the intelligence was there, the real problem was failure to respond accordinly (as well as perhaps inter-agency communication and coordination), not "improvement" of interrogation methods... Unless, torture is, somehow, desirable in and of itself, despite the fact that it helps terrorists in recruiting new members and sympathisers and to loose the hearts and minds of people whose support we need. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: torture is immoral by the way, or in other words, Jesus would not approve. And if it's not evil, then to paraphrase G W Bush (SOU), evil has no meaning.

Shorter Dershowitz: The end justifies the means.

"What makes you think that if they had obtained that info through torture they would have acted differently?"--you mean they would not have done anything different if they had known that on Sep 11 Middle-Eastern men would try to capture planes from the east to the west coast and slam them into their targets?

As someone who has had indirect experience with torture (several relatives and friends were tortured during the seventies) I find abhorrent the approval of these methods. It's also a bit discouraging to read "practical" arguments against torture based on its lack of efficiency; it seems to suggest that if torture were effective it would be okay to use it. So I will make a couple of points. First, torture is effective. Make no mistake about it, it works. Of course it doesn't work all the time and sometimes will produce false information but usually produces better results than legal interrogation techniques. Second, the prohibition against torture doesn't depend on the Geneva convention alone. The UN Declaration of human rights also outlaws torture (also many other treaties).The key is that a prisoner is either a POW (and protected by the Geneva convention) or a common prisoner (and protected by the laws of the country). There is no other choice. You just can't declare that somebody is now outside the reach of law and keep him prisoner forever without trial or rights. Third, there is some illusion than torture can be contained, kept only for special cases or something like that. It can't. Once it begins to be used, it will be eventually be used massively. Something about its utility or the character of interrogators makes it so.It's just the nature of the beast. Also keep in mind that torture has a large role as an intimidation tool, not only as an interrogation tool. A lot of times is used to cause fear, not to obtain information. On a personal level it's chilling that the USA is having this debate. Just look at the rest of the world and you will see a lot of lessons about torture.

"you mean they would not have done anything different if they had known that on Sep 11 Middle-Eastern men would try to capture planes from the east to the west coast and slam them into their targets?"

Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. I am not responsible for their mistakes and misdeeds. You go ask THEM these questions. And if you think it is unthinkable that they did not react in the face of such a threat, well, so do I. What can more can I say? My personal beliefs prevent me from lying, except perhaps under extreme circumstances, like torture. My grand-father who was a top "ring-leader" during the WWII resistance (I thought it is tinely to bring this up on such a week) would always tell his children that when tortured, confess ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they want you to, because confess you will, and there is always a chance that if you do, they'd spare your life or this or that part of your body (he probably knew from experience since he spent time in a concentration camp.)

Ben noted a common argument - that the Geneva conventions allow one side to ignore them if the other does so first. However, I've always been taught that there are very practical reasons for continuing with their use even when the other side stops.

Simply stated, it makes it easier for the other guy to surrender.

Know that I'm going to coddle you - to treat you humanely, without torture - and when it comes down to quit or die time, you're a lot less likely to make it a last stand. Which means that I'm going to lose fewer soldiers rooting you out of nooks and crannies, to deal with fewer desparation booby-traps -- in short, I'm going to spend far less blood, sweat, bullets and time for my victories.

Will there be exceptions? Yes. But they're far better as exception than being the rule.

Those of you saying things like "the Geneva Convention doesn't apply," need to go and actually read it. It specifically states that in a conflict, declared war or not, if one party is a signatory of the Geneva Convention then they are to treat the opposing party as if they too were a signatory.

That having been said (and the document signed by the USA) means that torture is illegal. Should there be an actual presidential statement proven to order such treatment, then the president would indeed be in violation of not only the Geneva Convention but also the War Powers Act, which has penalties for such aggregious behavior--such as execution. However, the only penalty that can apply to a person holding the office of the president is impeachment and forced removal from office.

Bush needs to make sure that any memo coming from him that even suggests such treatment has been destroyed and no copies exist anywhere. And declaring such as classified or presidential privelage won't save him. He'll get tossed out on his rump and do immeasureable damage to our nation in the process.

But if he does destroy such a memo, assuming it exists, then he would be in violation of the law as well. Including obstruction of justice. Either way, that's impeachable as well.

Is Bush (and to an extent, Cheyney) a war criminal?

Beat's me, but if he/they are, then we need this to be a pirority for the DOJ to research--then the penalties must be applied. And we must never let "the war on terror" be an excuse for the inhumane treatment of others, nor must it be an excuse for usurping of the power of the Constitution and the people's rights.

I suggest all the news media be alerted to this as well as every person in Congress. If they know about it, and it's true, and they do nothing then this society deserves to be doomed.

The law is the law. And, I for one, am tired of the Republicans deciding to corrupt it for their pathetic gain.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually, they knew a lot more than that."--I guess I must have missed that part of the news, about the date, location, targets. Can you refer me to it, and to the "more" that they knew? Thanks.

One troubling aspect of the American reaction to 9/11 is the overreaction. This was indeed the first time since 1941, and only the second since 1812, that the US had suffered an attack on its own soil, but many other countries have suffered much, much worse. An example is El Salvador, a nation of about six million which which lost as much as one percent of its population to terrorist attacks over about a ten year period (ca. 1979-1988).

There is nothing unique here to justify rewriting international law. What is unique is America's previous safety from attack, and America's power to do whatever it wants to.

On the legal end, the internation convention on torture is probably more relevant than the Geneva accords. The Geneva Accord are extremely statist and offer less protection to non-state forces, including many which we would regard as legitimate (e.g. the French Resistance).

Another probvlem is that in Guantanamo the Bush administration has tried to produce a legal environment subject neither to American law nor to international law. Regardless of questions of legal justification, this should send up a red flag for anyone who thinks the rule of law is important. The Bush administratyion has also taken the right (with the consent of many Democrats in Congress) to hold American citizens captured in America incommunicado indefinitely as "illegal combatants", without charging them or allowing them legal assistance. They have also stated (Rumsfeld) that they expect the war on terror to go on indefinitely; it more or less as to, since the enemy is undefined ("terror") and victory could hardly be declared under any circumstance.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually, they knew a lot more than that."--I guess I must have missed that part of the news, about the date, location, targets. Can you refer me to it, and to the "more" that they knew? Thanks."

I have other flies to swap paraphrasing your president talking about Al-Qaeda when briefed about the importance of counter-terrorism efforts. And, surely, unless Bin Landen in person called up Bush himself the night before with the list of the names of the hijackers, the flight numbers and the exact timing and targets (down the side of the buildings) of the attacks, there was nothing, abosultely nothing, they could do. And anyone who thinks differently hates America (TM). At least, people like you make for a fun break in work day. Good night.

Uruguay early to mid 1970's: Torture was systematically and thoroughly applied to essentially randomly chosen individuals. The justification apparently being that to circumscribe the "terrorist cancer" a few random probes were necessary. Torture, incidentally was performed or at least witnessed by conscripts to dilute blame and prevent finger pointing in future years.

When I hear similar language I cringe, this, compounded with attendant religious verbiage makes me think inquisition.

"Another probvlem is that in Guantanamo the Bush administration has tried to produce a legal environment subject neither to American law nor to international law. Regardless of questions of legal justification, this should send up a red flag for anyone who thinks the rule of law is important."

Two years ago the red flag went up for the American Constitution, and how many have noticed, or if they have noticed it, have drawn the correct conclusion?

I would like to see someone respond to the point walons first raised. Here's one formulation:

Suppose you have reason to believe that al Qaeda has an atomic bomb. They plan to blow up an unknown city in the near future. The bomb will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and give radiation sickness to hundreds of thousands of others. You have captured a senior al Qaeda leader whose knowledge might allow you to avert the attack. Should your methods of questioning him be limited?

Would your answer be different if you thought they had a hydrogen bomb?

Would your answer be different if you thought they had a dirty bomb that would kill a few thousand and would also make a portion of the city uninhabitable?

David: "Suppose you have reason to believe that al Qaeda has an atomic bomb. They plan to blow up an unknown city in the near future. The bomb will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and give radiation sickness to hundreds of thousands of others. You have captured a senior al Qaeda leader whose knowledge might allow you to avert the attack. Should your methods of questioning him be limited? "

But the people in Iraq were not any such individuals.

Most of them were completely innocent and harmless.

You bring up this scenario, which implies a very, very high bar before torture is acceptable.

But you use that rhetorical scenario while trying to *lower the bar* to the point where any Iraqi teenager could be sodomized at Abu Ghraib, regardless of what they know or what they've done.

You're not arguing for a high bar, David, you're arguing in support of a free-for-all.

David writes: "Would your answer be different if you thought they had a dirty bomb that would kill a few thousand and would also make a portion of the city uninhabitable?"

Torture should still be illegal, with harsh penalties.

Let the interrogators weigh the risks. If the scenario is *truly* dire, I'm confident they'll use torture whether it's legal or not. (It's not like they'll care about jeopardizing a conviction if they can save a million people.)

If the scenario is as dire as you describe, and torture obtains information that allows a scheme to be halted, then it can be taken into account at the trial (of the interrogators for torture, not the terrorists' trial) and during the sentencing phase.

The bar needs to be exceedingly high, because if it isn't, government officials will take liberties and lower the bar whenever they can.

Torture would be used like the Patriot act. Someone'd come up with excuses to use it for commonplace and non-violent crimes.

Jean-Philippe,

You are losing your cool. I thought true ironists never did.

The problem with this memo is that it is from Pentagon. No evidence that Bush signed or approved it. WH will deny that they ever saw the memo and
say this was just a position paper from the Pentagon neocon wacos. Not enough "there" there.

Unrealistic and implausible hypothetical questions have repeatedly been used to justify torture "in principle", but with no intention of limiting torture to extreme cases of the kind used in the argument. As soon as the possibility of using torture is allowed, then a new slippery slope argument is used to justify as many cases as possible.

"OK, so you'd use torture to save the lives of 200 innocent preschoolers? What about 10? 1? Whay are you willing to let a single innocent preschooler die horribly?"

I decided that the line should be drawn at annoying middle-schoolers. Torture should not be used to save the lives of anyone over the age of 12.

"The problem with this memo is that it is from Pentagon. No evidence that Bush signed or approved it. WH will deny that they ever saw the memo and say this was just a position paper from the Pentagon neocon wacos."

However, the memo specifically states this:
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

So this means that there is, in all likelihood, a presidential directive or secret finding, with Bush's signature on it, which takes the torture responsibility all the way up through the DoD chain of command to the Oval Office itself.

And this is why there has developed such stonewalling over the past week against pursuing the issue of responsibility and authorization any further.

France used torture rather freely in Algeria. They didn't start sliding down the slippery slope of allowing it ever more widely, did they? So the doomsday scenarios of end-of-all-liberty, though valid, can be exaggerated. It seems it's the authoritarian nature of regimes that naturally lead to the use of torture, but is it true the other way around? Is there enough, or any, empirical evidence for that?(That doesn't mean I have made up my mind for torture. Just that I don't find this line of reasoning particularly compelling.)

If you indeed knew for certain, and how can you, that such possibilities exist in the too soon future, it might be understandable that immediate resort to torture would seem attractive. However, a committed believer might well resist to the limit of his/her endurance and then provide false information that would "eat up the clock."

Then what? Do you return to the false witness with more torture? death? Why? For lying under duress?

And what of you? You have broken all the laws of civilized behavior and several very specific American laws as well. You must confess both failure and savagery and be subject to prosecution at law and, I would hope, self-condemnation.

It seems to me that, if the only recourse to unimaginable horrors is the torture of one, or even a few, individuals, your intelligence capablilties in regard to that particular threat/area are so weak and undeveloped that you are unlikely to hear of a threat from that quarter in time to prevent it. If that is true then you are torturing in the hope that you might find useful information. That is unacceptable in my book, and in American law books as well.

Where to start...

-> "Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice"

One law for thee, another for me: In 1998, a private citizen in a civil suit can compel a Democratic President to testify under oath in a court of law. The Supreme Court helpfully rules that there isn't a separation-of-powers issue, and (according to Orrin Hatch) if the President refuses to testify it's a high crime worthy of impeachment.

In 2004, no one can compel a Republican President or his staff to testify under oath, period. It's a separation-of-powers issue.

-> "and he wasn't impeached."

Clinton was impeached. What rock were *you* under?

David:

I will type slowly. You can read slowly. Maybe what I have to say will sink in.

All evidence to date indicates that, for states that use torture, guilt, innocence, or involvement are at best peripheral determinants of who gets tortured. Torture's major aim is political terror and intimidation. Not punishment, and not the extraction of information. It is also clear that people who are being tortured will say *anything* that they think will make the torturer stop. Onee need only read accounts of survival in the German death camps or Japanese prison camps. Veracity is not a major concern.

For the torture bureaucracy, the only thing that counts is *apparent* success; accuracy is, again, peripheral to the project, and there are obvious emotional and political disincentives to the accurate reporting of torture incorrectly applied. Consequently, the culture of torture is also, inherently, a culture of both secrecy and dishonesty.

This is important, so I will restate it: most people will not want to admit that they have committed unnecessary atrocities. They will also not want others to discover that they have done so. Thus torture will always be performed in an environment of both secrecy and dishonesty.

If you like, we can also discuss the implications for democracy of having a state-trained and state-sanctioned class of torture professionals. I'm sure that you have many good iedeas about how we can safely and humanely accomplish this.

Your hydrogen bomb example shows only that you think al Qaeda might somehow obtain a hydrogen bomb. A fission bomb is at the edge of possibility. A fusion bomb is not bloody likely.

As another poster above pointed out, you are using the most extreme imaginable example to justify acts that would in fact -- are, in fact, already being applied indiscriminately.

Let's see. The South African government used torture freely, and that government is still in power. The Somoza regime in Nicargua used torture, and they're still in power. The Soviet, Romanian, Hungarian, and GDR governments all used torture and they're doing great. Idi Amin's Ugandan regime used lots of torture, and they are still in power. The US used (or used trhough proxy) torture in Vietnam, and we won. The French used torture in Algeria, and they won.

Oh. Whoops. Bad examples. (Dobby must now torture HIMSELF.)
Perhaps David's model for the use of torture by the U.S. is more like that of China, Cuba, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. Those are all governments that have not fallen, so their use of torture perhaps prvides admirable models for our own behavior.

Perhaps David should move to one of those places. And stay.

Walons, we've already seen the slippery slope in action. Based on what we know to date about Abu Ghraib, what began as a highly controlled program on Guantanamo (itself of dubious morality, ethics, and constitutionality) spread to uncontrolled program at Abu Ghraib, based entirely on our frustration at not finding WMDs, not finding Saddam, and not finding much about the Iraqi resistance.

BTW, some number of iraqi weapons scientists haven't been seen in a year; it's impossible not to wonder whether the reason is that they were tortured, although, of course, we don't know this.

The Founders were well aware that there may be some circumstances in which the torture of a military prisoner might save more than one life -- and that it sometimes might make a difference in the outcome of a battle, or a war. Including a war for the survival of the Republic. (If that fumblebunny Confederate courier hadn't dropped those two cigars with Lee's battle plans wrapped around them, and those two Yankee soldiers hadn't happened to stroll through the same field and pick them up, the South would have won the Battle of Antietam -- and with it the Civil War.) The Founders knew that, and they wrote that prohibition against torture anyway.

If we are going to allow military torture under any circumstances -- even in this nightmarish new age of the Bomb -- we must ABSOLUTELY place very, very stringent legal restrictions on it. And that includes requiring a legal go-ahead, in every individual case, from somebody (or several somebodies) besides the President, thank you very much.

Saddest thing about this thread? This is where you gotta be to get in-depth discussion on this issue. I bet dollars to doughnuts this doesn't get adequately addressed by the media. It should dog GWB to the election but I doubt it will.

Been said a million times before... if this were Clinton, he'd be in handcuffs by now.

Walons-
Keep two things in mind when you use French torture in Africa as an example:

1.) Even though France was technically a democracy at the time, it hadn't been one for long. France has only had stable democracy since 1958, when De Gaulle founded the fifth (fifth!) republic.

2.) Although it seems like a long time ago, it's easy to forget that right up until the 1960's, France and Britain were still major colonial powers. Certainly you don't want the United States to bring back 19th century-style imperialism? (I'll assume that you're not a member of the Texas Republican "Bring Back Manifest Destiny! Re-take the Panama Canal!!" Party ;-))

France employing torture in Africa wasn't really a major "step down" for them, historically speaking. While France's Enlightenment thinkers provided much of the philosophical background for American democracy and human rights, France itself was never very good at implementing them until recently :-)

"Suppose you have reason to believe that al Qaeda has an atomic bomb... Should your methods of questioning him be limited?"

A better question is whether said methods really are limited. In this hypothetical situation, "you" are free to torture if you are willing to incur the wrath of the justice system in order to save the lives of others.

This isn't about the power to torture. It's about the power to torture without subjecting onesself to undue inconvenience.

Or, Gray, alternatively, you can stop thinking that simply intoning the words "this is war" becomes a justification for anything.

This, of course, is exactly what's wrong with the notion of a "war" on terror, as no less than Rumsfeld noted (see the other thread). This is not a zero-sum game: we aren't dealing with with a finite number of enemies, whom we can reduce to an ever smaller number by killing.

Amazingly enough, terrorism has actually been around for quite a while, and it's likely to stay around for quite a while. The way to defeat is to use military force where and when it is applicable, but generally speaking to find other solutions that will (sorry for my cliche) win hearts and minds to the side of tolerance and not murderous extremism.

By the way, Gray, are you in favor of torturing the likes of McVeigh and Nichols? How about the murderes of abortion providers? Where, in short, are you prepared to draw the line?

*** authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president." ***

Argue about torture all day (and certainly it's a worthy debate), but doing so misses the far larger, far more frightening possibilities of the above line.

Gray: if you like torture states so much, move to North Korea. But we don't believe in that garbage. This is the United States of America. Love it or leave it.

Bruce-

The cigar/battle plan story for the battle of Antietem is mostly overblown. The bottom line: Except in extremely rare circumstances, the tactical defensive always prevailed over the offensive in the US Civil War. This is because of the invention of the rifled ball that allowed sharpshooters to prevent cannons from being brought to the front.

Lee won his defensive battles in Virginia and incurred most of his casualties in counterattacks. Lee lost all his offensive forays into the North. Chickamaugua and Chattanooga are the two exceptions. Chickamaugua, the Confederate offensive succeeded because of a defensive oversight by the union army. Chattanooga, the Union forces carried Missionary Ridge because of poor engineering.

The victory went to the offensive force only by siege such as Atlanta, Vicksburg and eventually Richmond. Plans or no plans, the forces were roughly equal at Antietam and therefore, the advantage went to the defensive and the Union at Antietam. The same is true of Gettysburg.

We always had a secret weapon, one that ate away at our enemies' strength from behind...it was our reputation for the rule of law and decency.

Never forget that in performing and condoning these deeds, we have forsaken that weapon. Others have used torture, and failed the test of history. We always forsook it and punished it when it happened, and we stood strong. Now we choose to lay down what kept us strong, and to pick up the tools of tyrants? Are we mad?

EVEN IN THE MOVIES....

Darth Vader: Her resistance to the mind probe is considerable. Governor Tarkin: I suggests an alternative form of persuasion...Set your course for Alderaan."
.....

Princess Leia: But Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons, you can't possibly...
Governor Tarkin: [impatiently] Would you prefer another target, a military target? Then name the system! I grow tired of asking this so it'll be the last time: Where is the rebel base?
Princess Leia: Dantooine. It's at Dantooine.
Governor Tarkin: There. See, Lord Vader, she can be reasonable. Commence with the operation; you may fire when ready.
Princess Leia: What?
Governor Tarkin: You're far too trusting. Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration - but don't worry; we'll deal with your rebel friends soon enough.
.......

Governor Tarkin: The Princess lied.
Darth Vader: I told you she would never consciously betray the Rebellion.
Governor Tarkin: Terminate her immediately!

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!!

Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

(In memory of Ronald "Star Wars" Reagan)

That torture is acceptable to a significant portion of Americans (and adequately represented here) is enough to make Hitler proud. When the decision is made by Bush, after winning re-election, to open the gas chambers, who among you will be the first in line to begin operations?

On the "atomic bomb" examples; one problem of the examples is that this is precisely the case where torture would be LESS effective. The higher the stakes, the higher the motivation of the detainee and adding the time factor...it would be extremely difficult to extract any information from a very well prepared (and a guy involved in that plot surely would be), extremely motivated individual who knows how much time he has to hold on. Remember that some guys WILL resist torture, no matter what. On my country Uruguay I heard the story of a guy who had been subjected to the "submarine" (water boarder for the CIA) for several hours. At one point he makes the soldier stop and says "I'll trade you two more hours for a glass of grappa". That guy didn't talked. Torture is probably much more effective in less extreme circumstances.

Billmon has an interesting and enlightening perspective on the "Pentagon's treatise on presidential torture powers".

http://billmon.org/

Jon H:

"Torture should still be illegal, with harsh penalties."

"Let the interrogators weigh the risks. If the scenario is *truly* dire, I'm confident they'll use torture whether it's legal or not. (It's not like they'll care about jeopardizing a conviction if they can save a million people.)"

"The bar needs to be exceedingly high, because if it isn't, government officials will take liberties and lower the bar whenever they can."

The essential points....

I'd like to interject a little common sense and moderation into this debate. People who argue in favor of torture are not bad or criminal for expressing an opinon - they are just evil stupid cowardly scum. There are two sides to every question: it just happens that some come down on the side of Beria, Himmler, and Charles Manson, and some do not. And let's not forget America's special new age contribution to the discussion. If you tear the tendons from someone's inner knee with a pliers, but you do it with good intentions or because you are afraid, then it's gotta be ok. Right?

What can we learn from Star Wars? bakho wrote:

"TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!!

Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

I take a different lesson from the movie. Recall that Darth Vadar destroyed Princess Leia's planet, killing everyone. Her countrmen's defensive efforts were insufficient. In retrospect, they would have been justified in using any means at all to protect themselves.

Osama bin Laden and his supporters have set out to annihilate all us infidels. I think we're in a moral position similar to Princess Leia's countrymen.

David: you are being melodramatic.

Please present eviidence that Bin Laden et al. (1) have the intent; or (2) the means to "annhilate all us infidels." You really ought to read the transcripts of Bin Laden's statements a tad more closely. And you might want also to note that broad-scale, institutionalized torture was not used by the U.S. during world War II or the cold war, when we faced an opponent that really could have destroyed us all. (I am not sying torture was never used, but that it was not our *policy*.)

If you'll recall, it was the Nazis, the Japanese, the USST who used torture. And they lost.

And they deserved to lose, in large part BECAUSE they used torture.

Yours is not a rational argument. It is fear-mongering. Of course, torture proponents have always used fear-mongering and the logic of expediency to justify their practices. That is because they are cowards, and they assume that everone else is, too. Too bad. You may be a amoral coward, but most people in the United States are not.

David:

here are some helpful guidelines for you (courtesy of Digby). No point to reinventing the wheel, so to speak. I know you'll use these techniques responsibly.

---------------------

The GESTAPO and SD conducted third degree interrogations. On 26 October 1939 an order to all GESTAPO offices from the RSHA signed Mueller, "by order," in referring to execution of protective custody during the war, stated in part:

"In certain cases, the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police will order flogging in addition to detention in a concentration camp. Orders of this kind will, in the future, also be transmitted to the State Police District Office concerned. In this case, too, there is no objection to spreading the rumour of this increased punishment. ***" (1531-PS)

On 12 June 1942 the Chief of the Security Police and SD, through Mueller, published an order authorizing the use of third degree methods in interrogating where preliminary investigation indicates that the prisoner could give information on important facts such as subversive activities, but not to extort confessions of the prisoner's own crimes. The order stated in part:

"*** 2. Third degree may, under this supposition, only be employed against Communists, Marxists, Jehovah's Witnesses, saboteurs, terrorists, members of resistance movements, parachute agents, anti-social elements, Polish or Soviet-Russian loafers or tramps. In all other cases, my permission must first be obtained.
"*** 4. Third degree can, according to the circumstances, consist amongst other methods, of:

very simple diet (bread and water)
hard bunk
dark cell
deprivation of sleep
exhaustive drilling also in flogging (for more than 20 strokes a doctor must be consulted)." (1531-PS)

Regardless of whether or not torture may be effective in some instances, and the evidence seems to be against, let's not miss the forest for the trees.

This is America.

The willingness to embrace torture is embarassing. The statement that the power to set aside laws is "inherent to the president" should be alarming. Is this the legacy of a free people?

The Founders in their wisdom wrote a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments into the Constitution. We have solemnly ratified several international agreements that prohibit torture.

This nation was founded on the idea of liberty and in opposition to unrestrained executive power. How have we come to this place?

I want my America back.

Disbarment for the lawyers who carefully crafted the "advice" on avoiding prosecution for war crimes. Disbarment. Now.

The root cause of all this I think is that the neocon administration is dominated by adherents of the policy of Leo Strauss. A good summary of this philosophy, which teaches that a noble leadership cadre need not be bound by contracts or argreements, is in the current Harpers.

"You are losing your cool. I thought true ironists never did."

Indeed, there are things I am challenged to joke about. When I read educated Americans -of all!- debating the merits of torture, I feel very very sad. Believe me or not, I love America dearly for all it can be. Witnessing it slowly but surely going down the path of authoritanism is a degrading experience. In circumstances like these, irony is only a temporary and minor relief, I am afraid. It's like drinking down your sorrow...

On a personal level, it just dawned on me that I will never be able to go back home (or anywhere else for that matter) and critically argue the merits of the American Empire. People would simply classify me as either an idiot or a fascist or both if I tried. I am not saying this will be the case forever, but even conservatives concede that America's image has be tarnished for decades to come. And this discussion proves America's critiques right: not only is the chain of command guilty all the way to the top, but so is a good share of the American people (including its educated elite)! They didn't want their press to ask questions, in part because they intuitively knew what the answer would be, and they approved, my friend.

(By the way, if you are craving for some sanity in the midst of all this unreal necrophilia check PK's latest column: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html. I was watching Pat Buchanan last night trying to exploit a decent man's death to shore up Bush jr. with endless disingenuous comparisons with the Reagan presidency, and I began wondering if I have seen yet the depths to which conservatives are ready to go to in their quest to hold on to power and their delusions. I don't think so. As PK warned us months ago, beware of a cornerned beast. And sorry for the disgression.)

I am ashamed at the morally bankrupt americans* who are arguing the benefits of torture. It's almost certain that all pro-torturers here are Republicans. Truly the party of moral rot. Anyone with a conscience has already left that party.

W was right on one point:
"You are either with us or against us."

Count me as against.

* I reserve "Americans" for those deserving of the title, not for fascists.

Michael Walzer discussed the problem of dirty hands. Is he a Republican for just raising the issue?

walons:
You make a fallacious argument. Are you a sophist for it ?

I said that those who argue in favor of, and excuse torture, are Republicans. Go look in a dictionary for what the various meanings of the prefix "pro-". "Torture apologists" would also work.

ch2:

As I argued above, torture and dishonety are inextricable. Walons seems to be attempting to support my argument.

CD318,
Indeed.
Your posts summed it up beautifully.

So Dershowitz is a Republican? Or just dishonest? I am having some trouble keeping these distinctions straight.

walons,
LOL !
Let's speed this up a bit.
A) You will try to provide one Democrat who argues for torture.

B) Presuming you succeed and that I accept that there hypothetically might be one, I will point to two important qualifiers in my original sentence: "almost certain" and "here",
as in
"It's almost certain that all pro-torturers here are Republicans."

C) You will then latch on to my later sentence
"I said that those who argue in favor of, and excuse torture, are Republicans."

D) I will then explain that I was trying to clarify what pro-torturer meant. And that if it makes you happen I'll just change "are Republicans" to "are almost all Republicans".

And I'm not including the countless hours of fun trying to determine if Alan Dershowitz is a registered Democrat, or trying to argue that Zell Miller is a Democrat in name only.

But really, walons, it'd be nice if you actually had some point to make.

Anyone who argues for the use of torture by America is also arguing for the use of torture on themselves if they fall into the hands of a hostile authority. If you argue that Americans should have the right to torture people the USA holds in custody, then you are arguing that other governments have the right to torture the prisoners they have in custody including Americans.

Obviously the police were much too cordial to Mr Bush and Mr Cheney during their numerous drunk driving arrests. Otherwise, they would get it and not stand for torture.

The Proposal: by torturing people we will learn about nuclear bombs set to detonate in just a few minutes.

The Reality: American troops torturing people swept up at random who have nothing to tell about anything.

Lucky for us there are apparently no nuclear bombs.....yet.

My point is simple: I don't think the use of torture should necessarily be off limits for discussion. It may well be that it's not worth it. But I don't think anyone who RAISES the question should be equated with [fill your own favorite invective]. Dershowitz and Walzer on the left thought that it's a valid question. So do I. If you took the trouble to actually read my postings in this thread, you might discover that I'm not pro-, I'm not an apologist, I don't argue for it, I don't excuse it. I am interested in the 'ticking bomb' argument made by Walzer. Some points have appeared here. Sadly, they tend to be drowned by self-righteous clowns who prefer crude invective to civilized discussion.

Walons,

I didn't say discussion was off-limits, but surely you can differentiate between a dispassionate academic/historical examination of torture and some of the poorly constructed arguments offered in its support. It's pretty easy to distinguish the question RAISER from the "We have to do what we have to, to fight them" crew.

Second, my outrage was in response to a memo in MY government, detailing how to BREAK the LAW of the land to allow TORTURE. After such a serious attack on the core of what America stands for, I must speak up with force, emotion (yes even anger) in unequivocal terms. Thus, I care little whether you deride my outrage as "self-righteous" this or that.

My castigation was crystal clear and I didn't call you out. Yet, I get the weird impression you are simultaneously 1) arguing that you were not involved in the offending behaviour, and 2) writing as if my invective was aimed at you. If you feel you didn't argue in favor of torture, then don't take offense. It's as simple as that. Maybe you feel an ounce of shame at having personally entertained torture as a policy for the US. In which case, I'd say it's a good start. Bottom line: not everyone arguing for torture here was playing devils' advocate, and those in the White House were dead serious.

Btw, Dershowitz was arguing in favor of torture-lite, not engaging in some academic discussion. I condemn him as well.

As for the what "would you do, if..." questions ? That's fine for an examination of personal morals, but it's telling how these hypothetical questions have devolved in arguing for allowing our government to engage in an illegal, and inhumane activity without our approval.

"What if you couldn't afford medecine, would you steal ?" became arguing that the governement should somehow make some thefts legal.

Now I don't know who lobbed "crude invectives", mine were quite sharp. I didn't realize that the conversations were drowned by these "invectives", either. My one post must have really disrupted everyone's profound musings. Funny that you would choose to use the word "civility", in a post where many argue for barbarity.

My intuition tells me you really got offended that I singled out a party you still support for well-deserved blame. Take it up with your party representatives. I have taken it up with mine.

Sincerely,

The problem with this line of discussion is that there is little evidence from history or from human nature to suggest that the practice would ever be limited to the "ticking bomb" scenario. Those who would make a case for "limited" torture should explain why they think the genie would be put back in the bottle. As we have seen recently, the methods initially authorized for hardened terrorists at Guantanamo made their way to Abu Ghraib where some were imprisoned by accident and none were high value suspects.

I believe torture is morally wrong and it seems to me that endorsing torture is a form of moral relativism.

And while the practical problems with torture are dwarfed by the moral concerns, they still remain. Those who torture lose the ability to hope for reciprocal treatment. Coerced information is often unreliable. The value of every coerced piece of valid information must be weighed against the harm introduced by coerced information that is not true. Specifically, this means that the threat to state and society caused by making decisions based on false information must be considered along with the alleged benefits to security provided by accurate information coerced from suspects.

No, torture is morally wrong and, overall, not effective.

Walons:

Who is being crude - those who - politely - suggest that a nip o' torture now and then might be just the thing but that, or those who say "No!"

I remind you that the documents used by the Nazi regime to institutionalize torture were very formal and polite. Anything but crude. Should we have been polite to the Gestapo? To the Stasi? To Somoza's or the Shah's or Hussein's or Duvalier's or Marcos's or Botha's secret police, and those who publicly defended them?

People who use torture are justifiably reviled. The use of torture alone was deemed sufficient grounds by many to invade a country, Iraq, that did not attack us.

Now we should become like these people?

Hmm. People who entertain torture as a valid tool are uncomfortable that they’re being judged for it. It’s as if they don’t want to be held accountable. I guess amid the ‘invective’ they missed the discussions that focused on the executive branch’s efforts to exempt themselves from accountability.

---

In related news, next week the topic will be cannibalism. Expect arguments of the form:

“Suppose there’s a city full of starving children and you’ve captured some people you believe to be very bad and fat…
…
Would your answer be different if you had a really good barbeque sauce?”

Yes. Quite right. Based on a recent law graduates interpretation of a newspaper report of a legal memorandum which may or may not have even been in final form and of unclear legal effect, let's impeach the bastard. Who cares whether any of it's true? Hell, there's not an economist on the faculty of any public school in the country who'd be able to tell the difference anyway.

Let's hope the fever breaks soon.

It absolutely fucking blows my mind that I am having to argue with Americans about whether torture is an acceptable practice. Still, after all these weeks, it disgusts me.

For pro-torture types, a hypothetical: Say Iraq had been an actual threat. What if, to protect a million Americans, we could successfully menace Iraq by arbitrary blowing up a few buildings and buses? Surely the cost-benefit ratio would favor such action.

Keep in mind that those who have been tortured have not been tried and found guilty of anything. Keep in mind that even in the case of people who have been found guilty, they have not been sentenced to torture and so the method goes beyond what was meted out as just punishment.

Thanks for the analysis of my psyche. About these two passages:

"morally bankrupt americans* who are arguing the benefits of torture. It's almost certain that all pro-torturers here are Republicans. Truly the party of moral rot. "

"police were much too cordial to Mr Bush and Mr Cheney during their numerous drunk driving arrests"

Were these the sharp ripostes? Or were these perhaps "unequivocal terms" of outrage?

Ah dear walons,

"Thanks for the analysis of my psyche."

Since I detect sarcasm, I'll point out that I neither made fun of you nor engaged in defamatory Krauthammer-style of psychoanalysis, so you have little reason to be touchy. I just tried to guess which part of my post you took most offense with.

About the "two passages":

The second quote isn't mine and I'll defend it only if you allow me to give you someone else's quote to defend.

As for the first quote:
"...morally bankrupt americans* who are arguing the benefits of torture. It's almost certain that all pro-torturers here are Republicans. Truly the party of moral rot."

I don't make the truth, I just tell it.
Do you have a problem with affixing party labels ? Let me review, then:

Who controls the top posts of this corrupt and lying administration that has been trying to turn our Constitution into toilet paper, has violated the spirit and letter of our laws, and has lied and dissembled times and times again ? Who controls all three branches of government. Because the Congress is dominated by their party, actions to exercise the proper oversight of the American People in these matters and put a stop to the corruption have been hampered, delayed, or canceled.
Their dedicated supporters in the media have also publicly come out in defense of "let's use a bit of torture if we need it". It's only fair to infer the same will be true in the blog realm (it's definitely true for bloggers).

For me, such actions are evidence of moral rot, both by the perpertrators, those who help cover it up, and those who help defend these crimes.

You don't like how it "sounds" ? Pardon me. Cripes, I don't like that it's happening at all ! Do you and Senator Inhofe share some sort of "outrage at the outrage" ? Or do you think it's a few bad apples in the party ?

Walons, I'm very serious ! If you stick with what this party is becoming, you risk forever being tarred by its stench. If you care for the Republican party at all, it's up to you to save it. Not by ignoring what our own representatives are doing but by doing our civic duty. Ask for accountability, ask for new laws be fully debated, ask that existing laws be fully obeyed, ask that violators be punished, ask for transparent governance,...

Now before I say goodbye, let me address some fun but truly trivial points:

"sharp riposte" ?
I wasn't riposting, since it was my first post, I actually used the term "sharp invective".
Was it sharp ? You tell me. Did I draw blood ?

"Unequivocal" ? Absolutely.
"outrage" ? By G_d, without a bloody doubt.

Bye,

Also rather frightening (or discouraging) was Ashcroft's response to Ted Kennedy's questions re: the memorandum. Not only has Ashcroft refused to release all of the memo, but he seems to have said that it's not wise to question what a prez can do in time of war. Since Bush has said (many times) that we in a war against "terrorism"--and that we can expect it to be very long--then that means the Bushies believe or want the executive to be all powerful for an indefinite length of time (or at least until a Dem is elected and/or Congress has a Dem majority-the 'war against terrorism' will undoubtedly not be a war anymore if either happens). That appears to mean that the standard Constitutional protections, separation of powers, etc., don't apply any more. Combine that with the Bush Administration's disregard of any international convention, treaty or other agreement it doesn't like, it seems you would end up with an absolutist monarch--only answers to god. The US is allegedly a nation of laws not men (or women), that's supposed to be part of what makes the US "exceptional." Bush and his cronies seem to be bent upon changing the governing system of the US. All executive power, no accountability (except to large corporations and some wealthy people).

Not enough time to impeach. Schedule a war crimes tribunal in February instead.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. "

actually, they only knew that Al-Queda members were conspiring to fly planes into buildings and they were training for it in some school somewhere.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. "

actually, they only knew that Al-Queda members were conspiring to fly planes into buildings and they were training for it in some school somewhere.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. "

actually, they only knew that Al-Queda members were conspiring to fly planes into buildings and they were training for it in some school somewhere.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. "

actually, they only knew that Al-Queda members were conspiring to fly planes into buildings and they were training for it in some school somewhere.

"Perhaps, am I being again irony-impared (very likely), but that's exactly what they knew. Actually they knew a lot more than that. "

actually, they only knew that Al-Queda members were conspiring to fly planes into buildings and they were training for it in some school somewhere.