Beyond the Torture Debate
May 16, 2008 7:08 PM   Subscribe

Beyond the Torture Debate On May 6th the American Strategy Program hosted an event with Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colon Powell. Mr. Sands was in DC to testify to the House Judiciary Committee about the findings in his new book, Torture Team, which examines the legal implications of the Bush administration's policy of torture. Col. Wilkerson was on hand for commentary on the subject. The event was moderated by Patrick Doherty, deputy director of the American Strategy program. The event was recorded and posted by the New America Foundation to YouTube. It is 1 hr 31 minutes long, but well worth it.

The event was recorded and posted by the New America Foundation to YouTube. It is 1 hr 31 minutes long, but well worth it.
posted by dougzilla (16 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
I hope they prosecute all of them for crimes against humanity.
posted by empath at 7:22 PM on May 16, 2008


"Colin Powell", mayhap? (Or was that some sort of adolescent joke?)
posted by Class Goat at 7:37 PM on May 16, 2008


Oops missed that -- copied right from the YouTube page. You might want to mention this to the folks that created the New America Foundation YouTube presence.
posted by dougzilla at 8:05 PM on May 16, 2008


"Colin Powell", mayhap? (Or was that some sort of adolescent joke?)
Innocent mistake, I'm sure. He pronounces it weird.
posted by rokusan at 8:43 PM on May 16, 2008


I don't wanna hear anything from Wilkerson. He and his boss failed when it counted most.
posted by wrapper at 9:55 PM on May 16, 2008


Don't you think it's a bit telling that for four years the "leaders" of the U.S. were named Bush, Dick, and ColonColin?
posted by mystyk at 10:16 PM on May 16, 2008


I saw Philippe Sands on Bill Moyers last week—a remarkable and articulate man, and I hope he gets attention in high places.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 AM on May 17, 2008


I came in to recommend the Sands interview that languagehat mentioned. Link here.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 9:45 AM on May 17, 2008


Feith: "No, I was involved after"
Sands: "But it says this was discussed with a Mr.Feith"
Feith: "It's pronounced fife."
...
Imaginary Judge: "Would you spell that for the court"


Good post subject.

Green Light the Vanity Fair article Sands mentions.

Wilkerson makes some good points and I believe does not wish duck responsibility for any of his failing but rather, and this presentation is an example, is endeavoring to correct them by giving credence to the uncovered facts. Castigation should be reserved for those who don't grasp the disaster of their deviousness, it was nice to see Sands touch on this. "Hang them by their own hand". I may be wrong but detect sincere apology and anger in Wilkerson.

That Sands built a case by gathering information through confidence and rapport building with the perpetrators of torture is a delicious triumph of idea and principal.

The hearing Sands attended prior to this speech, held by the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. was a wild piece of theater.

The opening was the usual affair of Republicans attempting to shut down the hearing with infantile shit stirring. Darrel Isa took up his normal acrimonious fuckhead position and objected to having opening statements made a part of the record. After some back and forth over procedures and rules, a vote was called and a more and more flustered Nadler discovered they had no clerk to record the vote. He sputtered forward, eventually got the proceedings rolling and bile breathing Isa squared away.

On the upside, this has been the first hearing in a long time for the House Judiciary where the Republican side didn't ask to have Sandy Berger hanged for what they view as the sole egregious event to have transpired in the country during the past 7 years.

The hearing underway, it was astounding display of reason after utter display of idiocy. More brilliance and more idiocy. A tremendously partisan split in questioning but every talking point was spanked soundly and sent to bed.

The panel consisted of David Rivkin, the witness for the Republicans, who argued the Administrations' position and could see no wrong. The Democrats invited David Luban, who talked about the ethics involved in giving legal advice. Marjorie Cohn explained the concept of jus cogens (compelling law) and how the acts of torture couldn't be swept under the rug and that trying to circumvent them by passing immunity or pardons would only ensure their prosecution. Then there was Philippe Sands whose intellect and diplomacy ... leaves one rummaging for adjective to describe him justly.

The structure of the hearing benefited discourse, as the slack witted pro torture camp weren't just playing devils advocate, they believe in their untouchable status and thus provoked palpable passionate responses. For the first time in a long time, or so it feels, the good guys were afforded a level playing field and deftly trounced the torture apologists.

There is some light at the end of the tunnel and key officials (Judiciary Committee) have been presented charges and instruction for moving forward. There can be no plea of ignorance, an irrevocable process of investigation has already begun and no immunization can waylay the legal machinery that is in motion.

The entire hearing on CSPAN (2hours 22min)

If the hearing seems too lengthy ... I sectioned and put what I found to be the more stirring element on YouTube. As the hearing proceeded many answers were just reiterations of the given testimony. (No content is mine so the following aren't really self links just disclosing my interest)

The opening presentations, in my opinion, were outstanding in concise clarity and I can't suggest strongly enough their need to be viewed.

Philippe Sands testimony (YouTube 8min28sec)

Marjorie Cohn's testimony. (YouTube 7min7sec)

David Luban, also a quality mind, plows through his testimony, the weight of the subject matter so crushing, it seems, he can hardly gain breath his testimony completes the major points. (YouTube 5min25sec)

Luban actually went first, followed by Cohn and then Sands but the first two are more impressive.

Final thought and add on to FPP video.
An exchange that occurred during the hearing, that Sands references as having been enjoyable, between David Rivkin and Arthur Davis ... was a nice piece of ownage. I had kept this clip locked down because I didn't think it was very relevant and still don't, but since Sands seemed to like it, is here (YouTube 8min19sec).
posted by phoque at 10:37 AM on May 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


I don't wanna hear anything from Wilkerson. He and his boss failed when it counted most.

By that standard you shouldn't listen to any americans.
posted by srboisvert at 1:35 PM on May 17, 2008


Loving these links. Thanks, everybody.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 2:04 PM on May 17, 2008


From the Vanity Fair article:
the techniques were fine “so long as the force used could plausibly have been thought necessary in a particular situation to achieve a legitimate government objective, and it was applied in a good faith effort and not maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” That is to say, the techniques are legal if the motivation is pure. National security justifies anything.

I'm struck by parallels with this insightful critique of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game (a book I have loved since I first read it a a teen, for precisely the reasons Kessel identifies):

Ender generalizes . . . that the only rational policy to insure safety in the world is to be ready always to cause excessive pain. No authority, law, ally, or social structure may be depended upon. “The power to cause pain is the only power that matters . . . because if you can’t [do that] then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you”(p. 232). . . . A killer is motivated by rage or by selfish motives. To be a killer you must intend to kill someone. And even if you do intend to kill, you are still innocent if you do it for a larger reason, “selflessly,” without personal motives. And if you feel bad about being forced into doing it. . . . The rightness or wrongness of an act inheres in the actor’s motives, not in the act itself, or in its results. . . .

We see the effects of displaced, righteous rage everywhere around us, written in violence and justified as moral action, even compassion. Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault. . . . For an adolescent ridden with rage and self-pity, who feels himself abused (and what adolescent doesn’t?), what’s not to like about this scenario?

posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:34 PM on May 18, 2008


"... the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing.... The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to harm anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is though the sword automatically performs its function of justice, which is the function of mercy…. the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality." - DT Suzuki

Whether you're starting with Zen Buddhism or Christianity or Patriotism, moral absolutism leads to totalitarianism, which leads to wanton violence. We need a "conservatism of doubt" again.
posted by empath at 6:41 PM on May 18, 2008


Btw, that's a stellar essay about Ender's Game and neatly encapsulates everything I disliked about the book.
posted by empath at 7:02 PM on May 18, 2008


The opening was the usual affair of Republicans attempting to shut down the hearing with infantile shit stirring. Darrel Isa took up his normal acrimonious fuckhead position and objected to having opening statements made a part of the record. After some back and forth over procedures and rules, a vote was called and a more and more flustered Nadler discovered they had no clerk to record the vote. He sputtered forward, eventually got the proceedings rolling and bile breathing Isa squared away.

Wow, that was one of the more pointless bits of parliamentary time-wasting I've seen.
posted by grouse at 7:25 AM on May 19, 2008


"I don't wanna hear anything from Wilkerson. He and his boss failed when it counted most.

By that standard you shouldn't listen to any americans." -- srboisvert

hahahaha!

I respect Wilkerson a lot. Read his accounts of what went on at the time and since and you migh gain some respect for him as well.

phoque, thanks for the links.
posted by dougzilla at 11:55 PM on May 21, 2008


« Older The Crazy Raspberry Ants are coming! The Crazy...   |   The end of Rice-Boy Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments