If it were a rhetorical contest based solem on style, former Vice-President Dick Cheney could hardly compete against President Barack Obama. Obama is lean, tall, and athletic in poise. Cheney is overweight and supports a large head unburdened with hair. Obama has a smile that could melt more icebergs than rising levels of carbon dioxide. Cheney’s barely visible smile, composed of teeth in need of braces during adolescence, resembles an impish smirk. Obama has a cadence in his delivery that lends itself to lofty linguistic flourishes. Cheney has a systematic and clear delivery, but cannot modulate either the volume or rhythm of his voice sufficiently to evoke emotion. Obama is extremely popular, and Cheney is not. The fact that Cheney seems to tying the Obama Administration up in knots with his articulation of the need for enhanced interrogation techniques suggests that he is winning purely on the merits of his arguments.
Perhaps this is partly due to Obama’s obvious disingenuousness. On one hand he says, “… I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years,” but spends most of his recent speech in harsh criticism of the previous Administration. This might be acceptable if he recognized it is possible to come up with legitimately different positions in the difficult struggle between maintaining the safety of Americans and minimizing harsh treatment of prisoners who have information that could save American lives.
Instead, Obama argues, without providing independent evidence, that enhanced interrogation techniques have made us less safe. However, in the 1990’s there were attacks in America that culminated in the 9/11 attacks in 2001. After that point, the Bush Administration has managed to keep attacks from American soil. This accomplishment would have been unexpected if people were asked in the period following the 9/11 attacks about the prospects of a future attack.
The enhanced interrogation technique that elicits the most attention is waterboarding, which some argue is torture. However, it was only used against three of the very highest Al Qaeda operatives, over five years ago, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). At time when Americans rightly felt another attack could come unexpectedly, KSM boasted of upcoming attacks on the US and personally slitting the throat of US journalist Daniel Perle. It is hard to argue that KSM is a sympathetic victim. The enhanced interrogation techniques did no severe harm to him and were successful, in providing important information. George Tenet, a CIA Director appointed by President Bill Clinton, stated “Information from these interrogations helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia.”
On the positive side, there is evidence that Obama is learning in office, as he shoulders the responsibility to protect Americans. He now sees the need for military tribunals to adjudicate cases of detainees — a practice that he sharply criticized Bush for during the campaign. Against his initial impulses, he correctly decided against releasing provocative photos taken by the US military in their prosecution of those who abused prisoners. He recognizes that there may be those that need “prolonged detention” without convictions for some extremely dangerous detainees. He may still come to see that whatever protections he wishes to provide detains at Guantanamo can be provided at the state-of-the-art facilities recently constructed there. After having to grapple with the same issues that Bush did, Obama is drawn to some of the same policy positions he criticized before.
Unfortunately, Obama has set himself up for embarrassment and political division in the country. If he changes course significantly with respect to US foreign policy and the way he deals with extremists and if there is a successful attack on the US, his policies will compare unfavorably with those of the previous administration. This is true, irrespective of whether any specific changes are in any way related to a future attack. Under such circumstances his wonderful smile and suave demeanor with only serve to indicate a lack of seriousness.
The fact that Cheney seems to tying the Obama Administration up in knots with his articulation of the need for enhanced interrogation techniques suggests that he is winning purely on the merits of his arguments.
Cheney’s speech was loaded with inaccuracies, as McClatchy reports.
George Tenet, a CIA director appointed by President Bill Clinton, stated “Informationfrom these interrogations helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia.”
Tenet sounds like he’s trying to protect his own backside; his claims have no supporting evidence. Remember, he told president George W. Bush that the case against Saddam Hussein was a “slam dunk”. Consider that the next time you cite him as a credible source.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed made so many grandiose claims that it became difficult to tell fact from fiction in anything he said. This underscores the essential problem with “enhanced interrogation techniques”: you have no way of knowing if the resulting information is accurate, since people will say anything to stop being tortured. It has been reported that Cheney ordered the use of torture to get a captured al-Qaida member to confess falsely to a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan and former CIA agent Jack Rice have stated publicly that these techniques did not work.
He now sees the need for military tribunals to adjudicate cases of detainees – a practice that he sharply criticized Bush for during the campaign.
Unlike Bush, Obama will implement the Uniform Code of Military Justice, ensuring that these tribunals will no longer be show trials designed to get a predetermined result.
He recognizes that there may be those that need “prolonged detention” without convictions for some extremely dangerous detainees.
As President, he has the power to do that by classifying the detainees as prisoners of war – something Bush would not do, since that would give the detainees rights under the Geneva Convention, including the right not to be tortured.
Cheney’s behavior both in and out of office leads me to conclude that he is a completely ruthless and amoral human being.
This is the corrected link for Ali Soufan.
Cheney is winning the argument, because it has a resonance that is not effectively refuted. If Cheneys argument is so week, Obama who is stylistically better, would be winning. Citing the article you did to dispute the accuracy of Cheneys statements is not quite sufficient. Do I get to cite John Hinderaker who argued that the article you cited is basically a compendium of DNC/Daily Kos talking points from 2003 to the present. It is full of falsehoods, long-discredited canards, and misleading statements.
I know that you try to dismiss Clinton and Bushs appointee George Tenet and cite Soufan to argue that enhanced interrogation techniques did not work. A number of CIA directors agree with Tenet. Moreover former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer (who has been critical of both Clinton and Bush) disputes Soufan. The balance of comments from intelligence professionals and the refusal of Obama to release memos describing the effectiveness of EITs puts the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the proposition that the techniques were effective. Certainly, if the unreleased reports undermined Cheneys argument they would be released faster than a New York minute.
As to military tribunals, during the election season, Obama did not claim that military tribunals are fine but need to be adjusted. He was clearly against them. He has changed his position despite your sugar coating and to the consternation of some on the Left. According to the Jack Goldsmith od the Left-leaning New Republic The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric.
The detainees are not prisoners of war because they were not in uniform. They are accurately designated illegal combatants. BTW, if they are prisoners of war they cant be tried in civilian courts or military tribunals according to the Geneva.
Your comments about torture assumes the conclusion you are trying the reach, sorted of tortured use of logic, if you pardon the pun. The US Congress explicitly refused to designate waterboarding as illegal
Your entire argument on whether Cheney is winning the debate boils down to this:
“Cheney is winning because I, Frank Monaldo, say so.”
As for the McClatchy article, if you can’t find any errors in the article, stop the ad hominem attacks.
These unnamed CIA officials you cite were, in all likelihood, involved in the administration of these techniques or close to people who were. Any admission on their part that the techniques didn’t work would reflect badly on their performance as CIA agents. You have not shown any actual evidence that waterboarding or other torture techniques work.
The detainees are not prisoners of war because they were not in uniform. They are accurately designated illegal combatants. BTW, if they are prisoners of war they cant be tried in civilian courts or military tribunals according to the Geneva.
Nor can they be tortured. Actually define “illegal combatant”. If they are engaged in illegal activity, then it is a matter for the courts, and they must have the right to challenge their “illegal combatant” status.
As for waterboarding, people who have undergone the procedure, such as Christopher Hitchens and ,most recently, radio host “Mancow”, say it is. In fact, Mancow said he would confess to anything to get it to stop, again raising the question about the accuracy of information gained through torture – a question you dodged.
You assert that my argument that Cheney is winning is based solely on my assertion. I wish I had such influence. Whether Cheney himself is winning the argument, I suppose, is difficult to determine. Whatever the causes, as the Washington Post reports, his argument is accepted by a majority of Americans. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702248.html)
I reject the suggestion that I resorted to an ad hominem attack. To dispute Cheneys argument you cited an article. I cited yet another commentator disputing that article. Arent I just using the same approach for rebuttal that you were using? The only ad hominem attack I have seen here is your description of Cheney as a ruthless and amoral human being. Regardless of the truth or falsity of that assertion, his arguments are either valid or invalid based on his marshalling of evidence and reason. Why did you find it necessary to disparage Cheneys character in an effort to dispute his arguments? Is this not the very definition of an ad hominem attack?
You misunderstand the definition of an “illegal combatant.” The people we found in Afghanistan who were not uniformed are, by definition, not legal combatants. In the past such people were considered spies and could be executed on the spot. Indeed, Eisenhower did precisely that with Nazi soldiers parading as American soldiers. No trial — no nothing.
Again you resort to the assertion of torture and as I pointed out waterboarding was explicitly not made illegal. Waterboarding is used as a training method on US soldiers, a technique endorsed by Congress and experienced voluntarily by news correspondents. I do not see them volunteering to have theit fingernails pulled out. Again EITs were applied to a very narrow set of people (three I think) in a time of extremis. Indeed, Obama reserved the right to go beyond the Army field manual when OKd by the AG.
Contrary to your assertion, I did not dodge the question of effectiveness of EIT. I challenged Obama to publish the memos with regard to effectiveness so we can all make an independent assessment. It was not anonymous people protecting themselves who argued the effectiveness of the techniques. For example, CIA Director Hayden who came on board after EITs were viewed as no longer necessary (because any knowledge of the detainees would have lost its timeliness) attested to the effectiveness of the techniques. He had no personal stake in protecting himself.
Hayden said: The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work. The honorable position you have to take if you want us not to do this and believe me, if the nation says, `Don’t do it, the CIA won’t do it. The honorable position has to be, `Even though these techniques worked, I don’t want you to do that. That takes courage.
The argument that was dodged is the one by the New Republic that made the case that Obama is largely adopting Bushs policies.
I was just speaking with Gianmario Monaldo this morning here in Italy.
IMHO, Obama must do one of the following two hard choices to boost economics, before it is too late:
1) A Bailout for the People: Dividend Economics and the Basic Income Guarantee presented at 8th Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. Available as PDF
http://www.richardccook.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cook-bailoutforthepeoplepublished-feb31.pdf
2) NASA Announces Plan To Launch $700 Billion Into Space
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47977
What is your opinion?
Best regards,
Marco Saba