DKL, in the comments on that other thread, Arnold Layne comes forward and says that in fact Arnold Layne is his real name.

We pay attention to Mormons in other fields — sports, education, pop culture — and are just as pleased by their triumphs or disappointed by their lapses as we are with those of Mormon politicians. I think it’s fair to say that most of us consider prominent Mormons in any endeavor as a reflection on our culture and beliefs, at least on our reputation.

If there’s a Mormon head of a mainstream movie factory, we don’t expect the company to produce only LDS-family-friendly movies. We don’t expect the Mormon owner of a basketball franchise to refuse to play his team on Sunday. I don’t know that it’s fair to put our attention to Mormon politicians in a special category and say that we expect them to represent us politically.

But that’s not to say that we or the world DON’T do that, since the moral elements in political questions are more visible and apt to provoke more irrational extremes than moral factors in other endeavors.

Mitt Romney does not represent me politically. Orrin Hatch does not represent me politically. Harry Reid represents me politically. I will not be voting for Mr. Romney come 2008 due to his support of torture. He lost all credibility in my eyes the moment he did that.

And about Reid’s supposed “corruption”, I really am not convinced that his sloppiness is indeed corrupt. Frankly, I don’t really care what land he buys and sells off, and for how much. He didn’t use his position as Senator to enrich himself, so what he does personally is not a concern of mine.

Favorite excerpt from the Joy Luck Club:

“What kind of torture do Chinese people do”, I asked. My mom said, “Chinese torture hard, very cruel, Chinese torture best torture. Much better than American torture.”

Dan, I’m fine with Romney’s support of torture, so long as the person being tortured isn’t paying the torturer for his services.

Personally I don’t know anyone among my friends who likes Hatch. He seems very reviled. I thinks he keeps getting elected just because he’s a Republican. Hatch also is pretty nasty in primaries and does retribution acts towards people who run against him, I’m told. Personally I think Hatch’s politics are off also.

That’s the big problem in America though. Unless there’s a true open seat, a major scandal or so forth, things are pretty set in stone. It’s just too hard to unseat an incumbent in the primaries and often one is unwilling to vote against the party in the main elections.

I say limit terms in both Senate and House the same as the Executive—two terms. No questions asked, no loopholes allowed.

With hundreds of politicians being churned out every few years, think of how much the lobbies would grow.

I’m not convinced that lobbies would grow worse than now. However the one negative to higher turnover is that staff, which tends to carry over quite often, would have far more power since the politicians would spend so much time getting acquainted with things.

It’s a real negative although I think having more competitive elections is worth the costs. Although getting rid of a lot of the jerrymandering would help as well.

Are most of us really Republicans? Has anyone done research on this?

My impression was that LDS reflect the electorate wherever they happen to live. Where I live, most LDS that I know well seem to be Democrats (and it’s a shock and source of divisiveness to transplants from Utah).

Sure, the Republican (whoever it happens to be) will carry Utah. But since we have an electoral college and stuff, LDS votes in other states probably matter more than another few thousand votes in Utah and Idaho.

“I thought even most diaspora Mormons were pretty conservative.”

You might be right if by “diaspora Mormons” you mean the folks with roots in Utah, who move out here.

But that’s a minority hereabouts. Most of the members are first and second generation LDS. They have no roots in Utah and most of the cultural stuff just passes us by. We have lots of potluck dinners where nobody brings jello. We sing “Popcorn Popping on the Dogwood Tree.”

And we’re mostly Democrats.

Naismith, as the Mormon church grows, it will become more politically diverse, but it will always lean Republican, since that’s the Party of Jesus. Just kidding.

With millions of Mormons out there, every political persuasion has a fair representation among members — I have a good friend who is a Mormon Marxist.

But the American Religious Identification Survey, published by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, as of 2001:

Evangelical or Born Again Christians and Mormons are the most apt to identify as Republicans.

They provide this table, which gives the divide as 55% Republican, 14% Democrat, and 26% independent.

I’m also in the Boston area, and most of the converts like our family are thrilled to have Mitt Romney as Governor and now we’re eager to support him for president. We were very liberal democrats when we converted but have swung sharply to the right over the years, as our children have grown. We consider this swing to be the result of wisdom gained thru life’s experiences and also with our understanding of the Gospel principles which seem to fit more closely with our politics.. we’re always surprised when we hear there’s a Democrat in our Ward ranks, and enjoy discussing the differences in our points of view. I enjoy reading the “Evangelicals for Romney” blog and share with family as we follow the political scene, hopeful that Republicans will keep the house and senate in November.

…about Senator Reid’s ethical problems. The two dominant strains in the comments were disappointment and defense…very few people were willing to attack Senator Reid for his moral lapses.

To be sure, I may have said in the other thread I was sad, but it would not surprise me in the least if Reid has done wrong. I think of any candidate or politician as human first, Mormon or whatever second. I think I (we?) feel sad over Reid because we—at least—have an illusion of feeling closer and identifying with him because he is Mormon.

Likewise Romney.

I would guess this is something we are going to have to get used to. I have a gut feeling he’s going to be our next president.

I would *not,* however, vote for Romney merely because he is Mormon, even though it does add weight to my decision. When the Church says stuff like “vote for good candidates,” while remaining neutral, to me that doesn’t translate to, “in other words, vote for a Mormon if one is available.” After all, some Mormon’s have turned out to be terrible people.

In the past, when Romney made that amazing run and won in one of the most liberal states of the Union, I was amazed at his ability to make that navigation. I have every confidence that he might be able to pull off the same feat in this run. I also thought, in the past, that he was a bit shifty in his politics and often said what the people want him to hear. I still think this might be true, but the political landscape has shifted dramatically over the past four or so years, so that a lot of the republican party’s thinking lines up more with what I think is right. I think Romney may be playing these politics. Or not. I haven’t quite figured him out yet.

But I do think I would rather him than any other republican possibility I’ve heard of so far. Too I will most likely vote for him over any democrat, as I can think of NO other potential candidate (of those names that have been thrown around) that I would, in good conscience, vote for. Hilary = ICK ICK ICK! And none of this has to do with Romney being Mormon.

That’s a very interesting analysis, Naismith. But just to be perfectly clear, when I said, “Aren’t most of us Republican anyway?” I mostly meant it as a light-hearted aside aimed at exploiting a stereotype. The political leanings of Mormons in general don’t really impact the primary thesis of the post.

I’m not very politcal, and actually only vote because my wife and church encourage me to. I mainly vote for “decline to respond”. I don’t like to make decisions on things I know nothing about and I don’t like to learn about these things. I’ve only lived in Texas and Indiana, so I’ve never been represented by someone who is LDS, but I do feel I would hold them to a different standard if I did. I don’t care whether a Methodist pays his offering, because that doesn’t tell me whether or not he’s a good person by my definition of Good people, or whether he is going to represent me. I do care if an LDS representative pays his tithing because that does tell me about whether or not he’s a good person based on his and my common standards. I don’t care if he pays net or gross, but I do care that he pays. Why, because I have a way to measure him by his own standards, or at least what I think his standards ought to be.

Right now, I like Mitt Romney. If my options are him, John McCane, or Hillary Clinton, I think I’d vote for Mitt.

this comment brought to you by the apathetic people for Mitt Romney campaign society.

DKL is right about Reid’s phony pro-life stance. Reid likes to pitch himself as “pro-life” when he’s in Nevada or trying to sound moderate. But on any objective basis, Reid is less pro-life than Sen. Arlen Specter who has been a promient pro-abortion voice for decades. Here’s some info that demonstrates what a joke it is to say that Reid is pro-life. 

Reid scored a 55% from National Right to Life (For the record, the National Right to Life opposes abortion except in case of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger — a pretty mainstream position and hardly extreme.)

The following Democrats scored far better as pro-life legislators:

John Brough (La) 100% 
Mary Landrieu (La) 75% 
Mark Pryor (Ark)64% 
Ben Nelson (Neb) 91% 
Byron Dorgan (ND) 64% 

Most Republicans scored 100%. Even a bunch of liberal Republicans scored 100% or got close with 90% or more. Even Arlen Specter who proudly says he’s Pro-Choice got a 64% (10% higher than the “pro-life” Reid).

Here are three votes that clearly disqualify Mr. Reid from being called Pro-Life:

Reid voted FOR pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-Ca.) motion to send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S.3), to the Judiciary Committee to examine constitutional issues — as if there were constitutional issues and thereby effectively voted to kill the bill.  (March 12, 2003.) 

Reid again voted for an amendment by pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) to overturn President George W. Bush’s executive order that U.S. funds for overseas “population assistance” programs could not go to private organizations that perform abortion or promote abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest). This policy, was originally adopted by President Reagan and the first President Bush. (July 9, 2003) 

Reid opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997), sponsored by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) and Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). This is a bill to recognize a “child in utero” as a second victim when he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a federal or military crime of violence. Reid voted in favor of a hostile substitute proposal offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), which would have written into federal law that there is only one victim in such crimes — the mother. (March 25, 2004). 

The bottom line is that when Harry Reid says he’s pro-life, he’s not telling the truth. Just like the land deal, Reid doesn’t like to disclose the facts. In fact, he affirmatively misrepresents them. So the question is, why would anyone support a politician who can’t even be trusted to tell you how he votes – which is a matter of public record? Truthfully, it apparently means he holds the public in contempt – believing them to be idots to whom he can lie with impunity. And sadly given his long political career, perhaps he is correct.

DKL.. I can see the direct correlation between attending church and political persuasion and I’d probably be a political junky even if we’d remained Catholic, since my Catholic brother still is, but being LDS brings a much stronger response from within my already tuned in natural inclination toward conservative politics. I’m just more sensitive to the responsibility each of us has to do all we can to elect moral, ethical leaders and its so totally clear to me that Romney has the values and courage necessary for 2008.. why he would want to do this is awe inspiring.. but count our family in his camp.

danithew,

Just like how I can say I’m against getting high on heroin even though I’ve never used heroin before.

I should think this is one of those issues that we should have an unqualified view on. I guess there is still a lot more work to do to convince America to step away from torture.

danithew,

the sin of omission is just as great as the sin of commission (see Elder Maxwell’s talk). Even if we send them to others to do it, that implies we sanction it. And the fact that we hardly even know what torture is should frighten you, dude. Read Vladimir Bukovsky’s account about how he was tortured in the Soviet Union. I’ve got plenty more to show you how awful it is. But that’s not the point of this post, and we’re moving far from its main subject. (Sorry DKL).

DKL,

The other part about Reid’s land deal that nobody mentions is that the company the ultimately bought the land in question employs both his son and his son-in-law.

Maybe that doesn’t mean anything at all, but it makes his oversight in neglecting to disclose the deal even more suspicious. It’s like “forgetting” to file your tax return on April 15th.

[DKL said:] The answers, for those who don’t know yet, are: Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Moreover, they frequently are.

I just got that. Took me a while. Very clever!

Dan,

I’ve read plenty about torture in the Middle East. Basically every Arab Middle Eastern country has a mukhabarat (secret police) group that routinely tortures people. They do absolutely horrible and frightening things to people … and they are truly experts at their craft.

My point is that saying any United States politician “supports torture” is too general a point, not recognizing that our country is basically just in its laws and kind to its people. I’m not saying that horrible abuses occur, but they are usually contrary to the law and the will of our people and politicians.

Sometimes our security agencies might exert unusual physical pressure on a person and I’m sure there are horrible abuses that happen that we never hear about … but there is a tremendous difference between what happens in our country and with our people and the consistent deliberate systematic professional government support of torture that exists in the Middle East and some other places.

Mitt is, in my opinion, a decent guy. Blithely saying that he “supports torture” is incorrect and inappropriate.

Mitt’s on the front page of our local paper today, saying he decided not to use that national network thing after all. The fact that he considered it is enough for me. I’m a reverse bigot. Whenever we see “active LDS” on political ads (and we do see that here in southern Utah), I am turned off and do not vote for that person. It’s a personal pet peeve.

But I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

Dan, I bet Clinton had people tortured, as well. Well, rape is torture. If he raped me like he did Juanita Broaderick, while biting her, he’d be a dead man. Democrats are no more righteous than Republicans. I’m thinking Robin Williams might make a viable candidate at the moment.

Toby,

I know Tim Flannigan well and it is BOGUS to argue that he is the architect of torture – U.S. policy does not permit torture. It permits challenging questioning and it permits some tough tactics, but it does not permit torture. The people responsible for abuses at Abu Grab were convicted and sentenced to prison. But that was not an example of U.S. policy or Bush’s policy or Tim Flannigan’s policy. It is sad to say that there is so much ignorance on torture and so many silly assumptions with so little serious thought.

I’d love to get into it with you guys, but I’ve learned something these past few years: Americans will justify evil actions with anything and everything, and sometimes it is better left for them to learn the hard way. My motto of late is “calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days.”

DKL,

Based on what you’ve said, I can tell two things: (a) that you disapprove of water-boarding, and (b) that you’re willing to accuse anyone who has an honest disagreement with you about water-boarding of “supporting torture.”

I don’t just disapprove of waterboarding, but call it torture. When America starts legalizing a method that was used by the Japanese against us and the Brits during World War II, and for which they were prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Conventions, I think that I am making a pretty valid argument.

Danithew,

My point is that saying any United States politician “supports torture” is too general a point, not recognizing that our country is basically just in its laws and kind to its people. I’m not saying that horrible abuses occur, but they are usually contrary to the law and the will of our people and politicians.

You’re assuming that I equate our nation to the evils of Syria, etc. That would depend solely on what tools we employ. If we employ the same tools, well then the comparison is sound. I do not compare our tools with those of Syria—their tools are too crude—we’re a lot more, how shall I say, refined, than they are. No, the tools Bush chooses to employ were refined to perfection by the Soviet Union. There are disturbing similarities in sleep deprivation, waterboarding (used by the Japanese against Americans and British in WWII), and cold water dousing, to what the Soviets did to their prisoners, especially the ones that were purged during the 30s Show Trials by Stalin.

Arnold,

Mr. Romney has said he supports the president and his new detainee interrogation bill. That’s good enough for me to say that Mr. Romney either 1) doesn’t know enough about torture to make an informed decision, or 2) is playing to the Republican base so he can be their nominee in 2008. In both cases, Mr. Romney seems to have forgotten what the church has said about the treatment of others.

The church “condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances,” said church spokesman Dale Bills.

Now, let’s get to the inconsistency of these “alternative set of procedures.” On the one hand they are played down as not being really harmful (which is not accurate) and on the other they are played up as being effective (which they are not). Here’s the inconsistency: If they are truly not harmful, they how can they effectively make a hardened terrorist talk? If they are not as bad as hazing rituals, how can they truly be effective to get battle-hardened warriors to talk? Or is the opposite true? They are harmful and they are not effective. I’ve linked to Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident who was tortured in the Soviet Union. A doctor tried to feed him through his nose, as torture. He did not capitulate.

Does Mr. Romney realize these things? I don’t think he does. Or if he does, well then he obviously not only does not represent me, but will be a big target for me in my state. I will do all I can to ensure he does not win Pennsylvania.

I think I’m speaking in vain here on this blog. I don’t think most Americans really realize just what horror torture really is, and seem “deaf” to hearing any alternative (when I say alternative, I mean tried and true techniques that have actually worked—regular interrogation, where you sit down and talk. The evidence clearly shows that this is far more effective than any torture). Besides, why not ask God if you really want information about the movement of your enemy? It worked for Captain Moroni (see Alma 43), so why can’t it work for us today?

Dan, again, I think it’s inappropriate for you to try to turn a discussion over the legitimate bounds of interrogation into an issue that bolsters your own righteousness at the expense of those who disagree with you. This is exactly what you’ve accused Republicans of doing in the posts on your very own blog.

I’m glad you like that scripture linking thing. I was wondering how long it would take people to notice.

Arnold,

For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse the Church’s stand on condemning inhumane treat. I suspect that 99.9% of all readers of this blog also agree with it. However, what you seem to fail to grasp is that U.S. policy does not permit torture or inhumane treatment. You continue to assert that it does without any serious attempt to substantiate your claims. Until you present a serious case, no one should take you seriously.

Really? It is your honest and sincere belief that U.S. policy “does not permit torture or inhumane treatment?” I’ve attempted to substantiate my claim, but apparently unless Mr. Bush himself says “yes we torture,” you’re not going to accept the truth, Mr. Layne.

Please read Mr. Bybee’s Memo of August 2002, which after the uproar of Abu Ghraib, was disavowed. However, before the uproar of Abu Ghraib, was official U.S. policy towards the treatment of detainees. Note the language in there about what is acceptable or not.

Please read the accepted policies at Gitmo and how some brave men actually fought against the Pentagon using very harsh techniques that normally would not be justifiable under the church’s guidelines condemning “inhumane treatment.”

From the Gitmo article:

The law enforcement agents, who were building criminal cases against the detainees, also say that military prosecutors told them that abusive interrogations at Guantanamo compromised the chance to bring some suspected terrorists to trial. Among them, the agents say, is Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi whom the Pentagon has described as the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“We were told by the Office of Military Commissions, based on what was done to him, it made his case unprosecutable,” said Mark Fallon, the deputy commander and special agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation Task Force from 2002 to 2004. “It would taint any confession if obtained under coercion. They were unwilling to move forward with any prosecution of al-Qahtani.”

The irony in this whole debate over the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is that Bush claimed to seek “clarity” but instead what he really sought was to muddle the definitions even more, to the point now that Americans don’t think today that waterboarding is torture, when previously Americans prosecuted those who used that technique as torture. Bush doesn’t seek clarity; he seeks immunity for violations of the War Crimes Act! And America is willing to give it to him. That is reprehensible, and, no, DKL, I don’t care if that sounds hypocritical of me. We’ve got a president who ordered his CIA agents to willfully violate two Laws of the Land and now, before a change in government, sought immunity for him and his men. There is no worse kind of leader.

Interesting you bring up Captain Moroni as the model. As I recall he executed those who would not take up arms to defend their civilization and enemy combatants who did not unconditionally surrender and promise never to take up arms again. By today’s standards that is extraordinarily rough stuff. Before you start pretending that your position has a scriptural basis, you might want to be sure of the facts both as to current U.S. policy and exactly what the scriptures say.

What did Alma 43 say about what Moroni did to find out about the enemy? Did you even read it? Secondly, the scriptures are not clear about what state their government was in, but if they were in a type of martial law, I think he was well justified. Is America in a state of martial law? Are you suggesting America needs to go to martial law to fight this enemy? Don’t accuse of me of not knowing the scriptures before you read what I recommend, Mr. Layne. Read Alma 43 and ask yourself what Moroni did to get information about the enemy.

DKL
“Compare this to Senator Reid, who continues to use his position as a Senator to negotiate $1+ million land deals without disclosing any of it to the Senate.”

I would disagree that his position as Senator has anything to do with these deals. If you understand the backstory to this, you will learn that Mr. Brown, the other purchaser of the property, has known Reid for several decades. Mr Brown worked as an attorney in the same firm as senator reid and knew senator reid in his youth. Thus the connection is based upon one of acquantaince and familiarity not power. While you or I might not be offered these deals, it is anything but a sweetheart deal. It takes a significant amount of capital (I don’t have 400k lying around). Plus these transactions occured over several years, and if you know anything about the value of real estate in vegas, this transition will not seem amazing. I don’t think this necessarily implies corruption. As to the whether or not senator reid’s involvement helped the transaction go through easier, I don’t necessarily find this problematic. Why? Because he is a known and respected person. He has built a rep. Just like brand names convey confidence in a consumer purchase, attorneys, developers etc, create “brand names”. Thus the promise of one of these people is worth more than the average joe off the street.

Dan, a bit of advice – when you’re in a hole, it is not advisable to continue digging. Rather than digging faster and more furiously, you take a break and stop digging. You won’t buffalo me with cherry picked quotes here and there. In addition to being a lawyer, I am involved in the public policy arena and am quite well acquainted with what U.S. policy is and how it was formulated. You, clearly are not! Your position is essentially the same as the completely absurd rants of the Moveon.org. You selectively take small portions of documents in an attempt to weave a case supporting your theory while ignoring the other 99% of the evidence which disproves it. And your references to scripture are silly. Quite frankly, you are torturing the scriptures to force them to confess agreement with your conclusions. You’d do well to read them to determine what you can learn from them, rather than how you can contort them into supporting your pet political theories.

BB, that is a fair point — an appeal to authority is often a turn off and generally not all that convincing. However, before I explained that I know what I’m talking about, I and several others explained what was wrong with his argument. However, he simply persisted with the loopy MoveOn.org line of argument and mixed in a little self-righteous church talk — as if the Church through its spokesman has taken a stand or the Book of Mormon takes a stand on the issue that he claims makes Romney pro-torture. That is bogus and even intellectually dishonest.

You’re right that in the Supreme Court, I couldn’t simply argue that I know what I’m talking about. But in that arena, I’d be arguing with competent counsel and not someone who merely repeats the mindless and hate-filled diatribe of Moveon.org. If Dan is right, why aren’t mainstream sources and groups accusing Romney of supporting torture? Why did the House and Senate (with plenty of Democratic support) overwhelming vote in favor of the bill that Dan says is proof that Bush and Romney support torture. I am sorry if I have not taken Dan seriously, but I take seriously those who give me reason to. Dan hasn’t. Respect is, after all, earned.

@ Dan:

One of the things I like about the Book of Mormon is its endorsement of torture. You forgot to read the next chapter, O selective reader.

…he also smote Zerahemnah that he took off his scalp and it fell to the earth…

Love,
Tongue in cheek.

DKL,

The comment that you posted ended up in the mod-queue because it had 2 links (which is the default setting). We’re looking at the possibility of relaxing this, based on how well the Akismet filter works (which is entirely separate), but if you’ve got content that you absolutely want to make sure doesn’t hit the mod queue and you’re going to have 2+ links in it, feel free to divide the text into multiple comments.

That is good advice. In such a debate as this, more than one link is sometimes required.

DKL,

forgive me and my frustration with my countrymen. This issue of torture is framed badly by proponents of “harsher” measures. They claim that the bad guys “deserve it.” The issue is not one about extracting information, as the United States has had an excellent policy and instructions on interrogation of prisoners for the past sixty years and probably longer. The issue is that those who advocate the harsher techniques claim that this enemy does not deserve normal treatment. Upon claiming this, anyone who advocates differently will be cast in a bad light, that those who advocate differently defend terrorists. From the research I’ve done, I’ve come to the conclusion that the basic tried and true interrogation techniques work far more effectively than any harsher technique could ever work. On my blog, I wrote a post providing evidence that harsher techniques are ineffective and regular techniques are far more effective. I quote Anne Applebaum who wrote an op-ed on torture. She says the following:

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 — long before Abu Ghraib — to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.” In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no “stress methods” at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

Retired Army Colonel Jack Jacobs says:

“We get much more information if we treat people properly.”

He continues:

“When I was in Vietnam, we were given the most intelligence, the best intelligence and had the most success with captors if we gave them cigarettes, medical care, food (and) water. Almost always, you get the best success from treating people properly,” Jacobs said.

Retired Major Milavic wrote a long piece for OnPoint, a counterterrorism journal for the US Cavalry. He said:

You would also find illuminating the book: The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. This German interrogator purportedly gleaned information from every one of the American and British fighter pilots he interrogated without ever resorting to violence. This is not surprising when you consider: FM 2-22.3 states that direct questioning “works 90 to 95 percent of the time.” Even Gen Aussaresses admits in his book, “most of the time I didn’t need to resort to torture, but only talk to people.”

Major Milavic then recounts a story by an interpreter in Afghanistan about what happened because the “gloves came off.”

The following is a partial extract from the 11 July 2004, New York Times Magazine article entitled, “Memoir: Interrogation Unbound,” By Hyder Akbar, as told to Susan Burton. This narrative demonstrates what can happen when someone untrained in interrogation—especially this interrogation precept–attempts to interrogate a detainee:

It was a Wednesday afternoon in June 2003, and Abdul Wali was being interrogated by three Americans at their base near Asadabad, Afghanistan. I was interpreting. At the time, Wali’s family guessed his age to be 28; he was 10 years older than I was. I’m 19 now. I grew up mostly in the Bay Area suburbs, but since the fall of the Taliban, I’ve been spending summers in Afghanistan, working alongside my father, Said Fazel Akbar, the governor of Kunar, a rural province in the eastern part of the country. It’s a strange double life. I sometimes stumble into situations in which I’m called upon to act as a kind of cultural translator. It’s a role that can leave me tense and frustrated, or far worse: I came away from Wali’s interrogation feeling something close to despair.

On June 18, 2003, Abdul Wali visited my father’s office. He knew that the Americans wanted to question him about some recent rocket attacks. He told us he was innocent, and he said he was terrified of going to the U.S. base, because there were pervasive rumors that prisoners were tortured there. My father told him that he needed to go, and he sent me along to reassure him.

A half-hour later, Wali and I were sitting across from three men I then knew only by their first names: Steve, Brian and Dave, who proved to be David A. Passaro. It was more than 100 degrees in the small room, and above us, a fan whirred wildly.

The interrogation started casually enough. In his friendly Southern accent, Brian dispensed with the nuts and bolts: have you been in contact with Taliban? Were you Taliban? Then the subject turned to Wali’s recent visit to Pakistan.

“How long ago were you in Pakistan?” Brian asked.

Wali looked confused, and I doubted he’d be able to answer. People in Kunar don’t have calendars; most of them don’t even know how old they are.

“You don’t have to give a specific date,” Brian said. “Was it two, three days ago? Two, three weeks ago? Two, three months ago?”

“I don’t know,” Wali responded. “It’s really hard for me to say.”

The Americans exchanged glances. I prodded him: “Can you at least say a week or two weeks or a month or two months, or something?” But he couldn’t. For him, as for many of his countrymen, time unfolded forward—there was no way to go back later and try to fix it in a structure.

“I just, I go to sleep, I wake up and there’s a next day,” he explained.

“I feed myself, I go to sleep and there’s a next day.”

The Americans weren’t buying it. Dave took over the questioning.

He asked Wali where he had been 14 days earlier, on a night when three rockets were fired at the American base. “How could you not know where you were on the night three rockets were fired?” he said. Wali explained that his nights were often punctuated by explosions.

Even seated, Dave seemed enlarged by anger. His demeanor felt put on, as if he were acting the role of a fearsome interrogator (especially in comparison to Brian, whose Southern hospitality softened even his grilling of this suspected terrorist). Dave fixed Wali with an unrelenting stare. Wali returned a nervous smile.

“Translate this to him!” Dave exploded: “This is not a joking matter! Don’t smile!”

“I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend him,” Wali replied anxiously. “It’s very hard for me. I can’t understand anything he’s saying. He was staring at me, and I didn’t know what to do. What should I do?” he asked me.

I wasn’t sure how to react. Dave’s behavior was unpredictable. Only days earlier, he and I had a friendly conversation about his little son, who could say his ABC’s and count from 1 to 20 and back down again. But now he was acting as if he was full of rage. “If you’re lying, your whole family, your kids, they’ll all get hurt from this,” he threatened.

As I translated, I started to feel as if Dave’s words to Wali were my own, and all I wanted to do was stop saying these things to him.

“Your situation’s getting worse,” Dave warned. How was I supposed to tell that to Wali, when my father had assured him that coming to the base would make everything better?

Nobody was behaving the way they would with a regular translator; both sides added comments meant only for me. In one ear, I had Wali pleading: “I’m innocent, I’m innocent.” In the other, I had Brian dismissing his account: “That is impossible.” What was I supposed to do, argue or agree?

At some point, I announced that Wali was making personal, emotional appeals to me, and that the other translator in the room—a local Afghan employed at the base—should take over. Then I quietly tried to share my largest concern with Brian. “I’m not going to translate for this guy,” I whispered. “Look how he’s acting.”

“What do you mean?” Brian replied, perhaps misunderstanding. “I’m totally calm.”

“You’re calm, but look at Dave,” I said.

Brian shrugged his shoulders.

As the interrogation continued, I was relieved to be on the sidelines, but still, it wasn’t easy to watch Dave browbeat Wali. Finally the questions stopped, and Wali stood facing the wall as the Americans patted him down in preparation for detention. “Is there anything you want to give to your family?” Dave asked him.

The question terrified Wali. “No, no,” he stuttered.

I approached Wali and, to calm him, put my hand on his shoulder.

“Just say the truth,” I told him, trying to sound normal. “Nothing is going to happen if you just say the truth.” Then I walked out of the room, promising myself that I’d come back and check up on him.

He died before I got the chance.

On June 17 of [2004], a federal grand jury indicted C.I.A. contractor, David A. Passaro, in connection with his assault. Passaro, the first civilian to be charged in the investigation of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is accused of beating Wali using his hands, his feet and a large flashlight. [Also, according to the 29 July 2004 Fayetteville (NC) Observer, Passaro is a former Special Forces medic and “was working at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command as a ‘medical intelligence research analyst’ when he was arrested.”]

I’ve shown Mr. Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident who was tortured in the 70s. I’ve talked about the Israeli PM Begin who was also tortured in the Soviet Union.

What have advocates of these “harsher” techniques offered as evidence that 1)regular interrogations do not actually work, and 2) harsher interrogations actually produce valid, accurate, and actionable intelligence? They might point to an example written up by Mr. Dershowitz who wrote a book “Why terrorism works.”

Well that retired Major Milavic writes the following:

The self-described civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, published a book in 2002 entitled, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. In Chapter Four, he calls for the use of “nonlethal” torture in “ticking bomb” situations. Unfortunately, he neither tells us how we can be sure that an event is imminent nor how we can be sure that the torture applied will not have a fatal result. On the surface, his recommendation of pushing needles under someone’s fingernails appears to be a nonfatal technique. But, can we be sure of that in the case of an older source with a heart problem? As evidence that torture works, Dershowitz describes an event that took place in the Philippines in 1995. It seems the police captured one Abdul Hakim Murad after finding a bomb-making factory in his apartment in Manila. They beat him and broke his ribs, burned him with cigarettes, forced water down his throat, then threatened to turn him over to the Israelis. Sixty-seven days later he broke and told of terror plots to blow up 11 airliners, crash another into the headquarters of the CIA and to assassinate the Pope. Unsaid here is which of these purported plots were subsequently confirmed. Also, I find it curious that Dershowitz would argue for the use of torture in a “ticking bomb” situation based on a torture-interrogation example that took sixty-seven days to bring to fruition. According to WO Brian Copeland of the Navy/Marine Intelligence Training Course (NMITC), Dam Neck, Va., current Marine Corps interrogation doctrine is that detainee information is highly perishable and, in a tactical environment, has a shelf life of 24 to 48 hours.

I challenge backers of “harsher techniques” to prove that 1)regular interrogations do not actually work, and 2) harsher interrogations actually produce valid, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Otherwise, the only leg you’ve got to stand on is that “they deserve it.” Well…..then are we in the business of revenge or justice?

Dan, my “attacks” aren’t against you personally, but against your outrageous attacks against everyone who doesn’t see things your way. I have no venom for you, but I have little tolerance for you repeatedly calling Bush, Romney and most of the readers of this blog “pro-torture” simply because they don’t agree with you about how to question terrorists short of actual torture, but in ways that are aggressive.

Had you simply argued that the policy was misguided because it would not lead to better information, I would have disagreed, but respectfully so. Reasonable people can disagree on such a point. But that was not your argument. You argued that those who disagreed with you were not simply mistaken, but pro-torture. That isn’t even an argument — it is just rank name-calling. And that is how you started off your comments here. I began by pointing out that such an argument was absurd, but I didn’t personally attack you.

If re-read the thread, you will see that several folks explained why glibly calling people with whom you disagree “pro-torture” was completely off the charts. Yet, you simply repeated the charge and persisted in calling everyone who saw the issue differently an advocate of torture. After a while, I lost patience with this offensive exercise. But, I never attacked you, the way that you attacked everyone who didn’t see things your way. I never said you are “pro-terrorist,” for example, simply because you want to simply talk with the terrorists. Yet that is precisely what you did to those who don’t agree with you. That is real venom and that is what you dished out from the very beginning. I simply became increasingly tired of you repeatedly calling everyone who sees the issuse differently “pro-torture.”

It is quite odd that now you’re offended or feel mistreated because I took you to task for calling those who do not agree with you advocates of torture.

Dan, would a double-blind study with 1,000 subjects conducted over 25 years make you happy? Or would the word of military and CIA interrogators be good enough?

As part of my job, I have interviewed a number of interrogators and they all said that sometimes talking works best, sometimes tough tactics like standing or no sleep or listening to loud music work best. They likened it to having a tool chest with a number of tools. If you’re building a deck, a hammer is helpful. But if you’re changing a faucet, a hammer is of little use and the wrench would come in pretty handy. They said each tool has its place and each tool can be highly effective.

Dan, your position, seems to be that no one will ever provide accurate information if they are required to stand or not allowed to sleep for a while or are forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Your position runs counter to everything a number of military and CIA interrogators have told me. They are in the business of obtaining useful information. If tickling the terrorists’ feet would help, they would do it. They do what works — within the bounds of the law. Almost everything you say runs counter to what I’ve learned talking with real, live interrogators. Perhaps your research shouldn’t be limited to MoveOn.org and other like sources that simply have a political ax to grind and are clearly not interested in truth or accuracy — just scoring political points.

Having answered your question, you still haven’t explained (after almost a week of discussion) why you feel justified in calling others “pro-torture” simply because they don’t swallow your silly MoveOn.org arguments hook, line and sinker.

*oops “anecdotally”

Actually Mr. Layne, it is not my homework that you wish for me to do, but you wish for me to do YOUR homework. I’m not making the argument that torture works. You are. So show us the evidence.

As to your question, the “justification” for calling someone who agrees with torture as pro-torture should be pretty obvious. If you agree with “it”, are you not pro-”it?” If you agree with it, you certainly are not anti-”it.”

You really don’t want to prove your point, Mr. Layne, so I am through here. This is a side topic anyways to the main point of this thread, which is who does Mr. Romney represent. I simply proponed that he does not represent me because he supports torture. I believe that the techniques legalized by Bush and the Congress amount to torture, and I’ve given evidence of the same. You have not disputed the techniques but went on a tirade about moveon.org, even though I have no connection to moveon.org, nor do I ever quote from them (check my blog), nor do I endorse their tactics. In your eyes anyone who disagrees with you must be a loony lefty, so you attack them rather than their points. Prove it, Mr. Layne, that the techniques Mr. Bush has legalized are not torture. Otherwise, don’t be upset if someone says that you are pro-torture, because that’s just how it is.

I think I lost interest, oh, back in thread post #69, wherein Dan posted the Internet.

Dan, the problem is that you want to keep group all torture into the same category, so that you move with ease from talking about murder to sleep deprivation and all the while pretend that you’re describing the same thing. That’s called equivocation.

David, I think you’re right in your initial conclusion, which I hope I got right. Just because a guy is a Mormon doesn’t mean that we should give him a pass if he screws up. That’s almost an easier issue here in Utah, where everyone is Mormon. We have our corrupt politicians. Here in Cedar City, our sheriff was convicted of corruption a few years back.

My favorite Mormon politician is Jim Matheson. I also like Robert Bennett, because he was very nice to me when my son died.

But if they screw up, they’re off my list.

DKL, remember how you hung on to the word “chick” when it annoyed so many people? Dan sort of reminds me of you. Different word, but still. :)

I haven’t heard you use that word in a long, long time.

Dan, whether you admit it or not, you clearly overstated your case. You can’t accuse people of being pro-torture unless you can prove on some objective basis that they support actions that are torture. That you consider this or that torture is simply not relevant. Otherwise, I could accuse you of not only supporting torture, but engaging it and then concoct my own definition of torture (i.e. it is torture to post goofy comments calling Romney pro-torture). But that is simply too cute by half. The truth is, as wrong as your position is, and as poorly as you’ve asserted it, it doesn’t amount to torture. Likewise, you can’t simply make up your own subjective definition of torture and apply to those with whom you have political disagreements.

Words mean things. If I were to call you a murderer and then when pressed to explain why, stated that in my opinion murders are people who express silly political opinions, I would simply be using a word that carries a strong moral judgment and redefining it into triviality — making a mockery of language and it meaning. Moreover, it is dishonest because it would simply be an attempt to label you evil or bad and to marginalize you with a word that means one thing to the general pubic, but a word that I have privately defined to mean a great deal less than I know others will understand when I misuse a word like murderer. Simply put, this is the tactic of a sophist. And that is essentially what you are doing when you seek to re-define a morally-laden word like “torture” to suit your purposes only after you are pressed to prove the rather outrageous charge that Romeny is pro-torture.

You could have simply stated in your initial comment that Romney doesn’t represent you because he supports Bush’s interrogation policy and you find that policy very troubling. You could have explained that you don’t believe aggressive questioning works and that you are concerned about the morality of such questioning tactics. But, you simply said, that Romney is “pro-torture.” That charge is false. But if you’re going to use morally-laden words like murder, rape or torture, you better have the proof that you’re right — and not just right using your personal definitions of words that have common meanings and understandings. You must be able to prove you’re right on an objective basis.

I assume your reference to changing America and getting back on track is a reference to the upcoming elections. ;-) Do you really think Nancy Pelosi and Alcee Hastings are going to get America back on track? If so, that would explain a lot.

Arnold,

You could have simply stated in your initial comment that Romney doesn’t represent you because he supports Bush’s interrogation policy and you find that policy very troubling. You could have explained that you don’t believe aggressive questioning works and that you are concerned about the morality of such questioning tactics. But, you simply said, that Romney is “pro-torture.”

Eh, I thought “pro-torture” sufficiently covered exactly what you wrote. To say it is “aggressive questioning” without doing the very same thing you just asked me to do is also disingenuous. How do YOU define “aggressive questioning?” How can you even know what the techniques are when Bush refuses to allow Americans to judge for themselves if these aggressive techniques are even torture? He simply states, “Trust us!” NO! Mr. Layne, you do not even know what these techniques are, but somehow think your political leaders could never use something evil, no, not American leaders; they are inspired by God, they can’t make mistakes!

There has not been a debate in America about the techniques because Bush refuses to discuss them. His lame excuse is that the bad guys are gonna now try to find ways to resist them. What a weak excuse! Like America is going to use tougher techniques than these terrorists have gone through in their medieval dictatorship countries! So why does Mr. Bush refuse to name them? It all has to do with the fact that he knows that the techniques he ordered the CIA to use on detainees violated the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions. By the mere mention of them on public record gives future prosecutors the ammunition to prosecute HIM! Why does the Military Commissions Act cover retroactive actions? To immunize past criminal actions! Was there even a public debate about why the Military Commissions Act needed to be retroactive? No!

We’ve hardly had the debate needed in this country over this issue, Mr. Layne, because to do so would mean that Bush and CIA agents could be prosecuted for violating American law. That’s why this law was pushed before the November elections and to be effective retroactively, to immunize Bush and the CIA from future prosecution! I’m sorry, but this is evil, and I will continue to call it that.

danithew,

the use of “aggressive techniques” runs on the principle of diminishing rate of return. The more you press, the less you get. We all know that extreme torture techniques are unreliable because in the end the detainee will simply scream out whatever the captor wishes to hear. Alan Dershowitz wrote a book about terrorism in which he uses an example of someone caught in the Philippines who, after 67 days of torture revealed certain plots, the credibility of which has never been verified. Major Milavic, who I quoted earlier, had this to say about it:

The self-described civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, published a book in 2002 entitled, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. In Chapter Four, he calls for the use of “nonlethal” torture in “ticking bomb” situations. Unfortunately, he neither tells us how we can be sure that an event is imminent nor how we can be sure that the torture applied will not have a fatal result. On the surface, his recommendation of pushing needles under someone’s fingernails appears to be a nonfatal technique. But, can we be sure of that in the case of an older source with a heart problem? As evidence that torture works, Dershowitz describes an event that took place in the Philippines in 1995. It seems the police captured one Abdul Hakim Murad after finding a bomb-making factory in his apartment in Manila. They beat him and broke his ribs, burned him with cigarettes, forced water down his throat, then threatened to turn him over to the Israelis. Sixty-seven days later he broke and told of terror plots to blow up 11 airliners, crash another into the headquarters of the CIA and to assassinate the Pope. Unsaid here is which of these purported plots were subsequently confirmed. Also, I find it curious that Dershowitz would argue for the use of torture in a “ticking bomb” situation based on a torture-interrogation example that took sixty-seven days to bring to fruition. According to WO Brian Copeland of the Navy/Marine Intelligence Training Course (NMITC), Dam Neck, Va., current Marine Corps interrogation doctrine is that detainee information is highly perishable and, in a tactical environment, has a shelf life of 24 to 48 hours.

We know there is a diminishing rate of return with the application of more aggressive techniques, whereas I’ve shown with recorded accounts of former intelligence operatives who say that the best source of information comes from treating prisoners well. I’ve also shown that sleep deprivation (and other psychological techniques that end up distorting a detainee’s mind) also prove unreliable. After all, if the detainee can’t think straight, why would you even think he can tell you the truth? Sleep deprivation is akin to a drunken stupor. Have you ever driven during the middle of the night on lack of sleep? If you can’t even tell where the road is in front of you, how can you even remember certain minutae details about this or that? Why would you even think this is reliable?

So forgive my frustration on this whole thread. I honestly thought Americans would put more thought into the effects of these techniques than they obviously have. They watch Jack Bauer on “24″ too often, methinks, and they don’t take into consider the actual results of these techniques. They are unreliable, they do psychological and physical harm to the detainee, they wreck our moral standing in the world, they invite other countries to justify their own torture, because, hey America does it, so it must be alright, they will inevitably bring about reciprocity—our own soldiers will be tortured and our enemies will say, “hey, you torture, so you have no leg to stand on in criticizing us torturing your own.” I seriously have too high a standard for my country apparently. I honestly thought more Americans would consider all these factors before supporting this president and those who back him on these “aggressive techniques.”

I wonder what kind of torture techniques would be suitable to use on Dan. Anyone?

Mr. Layne,

I call it as I see it. Waterboarding is torture. If someone is for waterboarding, they are for torture. The logic is pretty clear to me. Sleep deprivation is torture. If someone advocates for sleep deprivation, they are advocating for torture.

The problem you seem to have is that you dislike being called “pro-torture.” That is your problem to deal with. It is your own choice.

You obviously do not agree with me and instead of respectfully disagreeing, you continue to attack me personally. I’m done. I’ve made my point.

PS: Did you read the alternative method? What method did Moroni use to get information about the movement of the enemy?

Dan, if sleep deprivation is torture, then college life is torture, being a parent is torture, being a Scout Master is torture, being a seminary teacher is torture, and being a bishop is torture. The truth is the items you’ve listed are NOT torture. You may consider them such, but it is not self-evidently true that they are. In fact, there is no authoritative legal precedent finding them to be torture. If you oppose sleep deprivation, that’s great. But that you label people evil and pro-torture because they don’t share your views is beyond bizarre. That you’ve continued with this childish tantrum is even worse.

For you to act as if sleep deprivation fits in the same category as beating people, electrocuting them, disemboweling them, etc. is quite absurd! For you to act as if sleep deprivation is so evil that all rational people of goodwill must agree with you or be dismissed as evil is also ridiculous.

I began this discussion thinking you were misinformed and naive. But I now realize it is much worse than that. Your sense of right and wrong is so dysfunctional, it can’t distinguish between real torture and modest discomfort. You persist in calling people evil simply because they view an issue like sleep deprivation differently than you. Then you pat yourself on the back for being morally superior. Then you pat yourself on the back again for having the moral courage to “call them like you see them.” All of this says a great deal about you (and none of it is good) and reveals nothing about those you call evil.

Dan, I understand perfectly well! You do not understand how well I understand. Therein lies the problem.

Oh, Dan, why do you torture us so! And keep us up so late at night! Why, O Dan, why!

Hopeless! Completely hopeless! I have never before encountered a person who so confidently, self-righteously and obliviously argued such complete and utter nonsense. Watching a dog chase its tail is more enlightening. It only goes to prove the most dangerous people are those who do not know they do not know.

I was watching Senator Obama give a speach at the Chicago Club on CNN. During the Question and answer section he picks on the reverend, and says he has to let him ask a question because “you know he has a direct line with upstairs.” Could a Mormon politician do that in a public meeting if Pres. Hinkley were there. People would freak.

Fact is, noone should care. I don’t care if Obama wants to connect himself with the Evangelical Christian clergy member in the audience.

Also, who cares if Mitt Romney is going for the Mormon vote. Isn’t that why Presidents pick vice-presidents that can carry a particular battleground state.

Fair treatment.

annegb, would the use of the word “chick” hereabouts be a no-no in all contexts or depending on context? As, perhaps, would be “babe,” “doll,” “broad,” or “wench”? And is such a proscription due more to some version of feminist theory or else to these terms’ “youth culture” associations, within every generation, of moral laxity (in line with avoiding such other signs of worldliness as the wearing of multiple earings or having a tatoo)?

IMHO, events like Romney,Reid, & Hatch politics raise the level of anxiety about the ‘mainstreaming’ issue; the fundys Don’t like mainstreaming, the progressives Do; others (in the middle) simply ignore it or Deny it.

For its part, official Mormon statements are also to ‘play dumb’ or downplay this, even as leaders give talks & lower-key messages on either-both sides of the issue, Ambiguity is their Friend.

‘Standing For Something’? Not Quite…