Category: The Dish

In my view, Clinton needs a double-digit victory to stay even faintly credible going forward.

No one disputes the legal definition: the infliction of

"severe mental or physical pain or suffering"

to coerce prisoners to give information. The debate has at times bogged itself down in details about which specific form of coercion is defined by this. But it surely matters less what method is used than the degree of "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" expressed by the prisoner subjected to it. In the case of al-Qahtani, we have a rare example of a government-logged account of how one prisoner responded to a series of repeated and constant techniques. Here is Philippe Sands’ collation of the responses of al-Qahtani to the "enhanced interrogation" techniques inflicted on him by interrogators authorized and monitored by the president of the United States. These are all separate responses to separate interventions:

Detainee began to cry. Visibly shaken. Very emotional. Detainee cried. Disturbed. Detainee began to cry. Detainee bit the IV tube completely in two. Started moaning. Uncomfortable. Moaning. Began crying hard spontaneously. Crying and praying. Very agitated. Yelled. Agitated and violent. Detainee spat. Detainee proclaimed his innocence. Whining. Dizzy. Forgetting things. Angry. Upset. Yelled for Jesus …

Urinated on himself. Began to cry. Asked God for forgiveness. Cried. Cried. Became violent. Began to cry. Broke down and cried. Began to pray and openly cried. Cried out to Jesus several times. Trembled uncontrollably.

I have changed a couple of references to Allah to Jesus, the better to cut through any religious bias we may have. Now recall: this is the government’s own account. Many other reports from sources such as the Red Cross or indeed FBI officials suggest much worse. And, of course, there is a subjective gray area here. But if you heard a prisoner in a neighboring cell making these sounds, and if they went on for days, weeks, months, would it be reasonable to conclude that such a prisoner was being subjected to "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" as a speaker of plain English would understand those words? At the end of this process of interrogation, according to testimony by an FBI officer, Qahtani

"was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to non existent people, reporting hearing voices, crouching in a cell covered with a sheet for hours on end)."

Has such a person in your judgment been subjected to "severe mental pain or suffering"? If he has, then he is the victim of a clear violation of the baseline protections afforded all prisoners by the Geneva Conventions, a violation that was not only authorized but monitored by the most powerful men in the Bush administration.

Dan Savage pens a touching tribute to his mother, who died last Monday. Love from the Dish to Dan, Terry and DJ.

By Patrick
Along these lines, Mark Vernon discusses atheism as a way of life.

(Hat tip: Frank Wilson)

Terry McAuliffe in Washington State. Still wearing the Hillary button, of course, but …

Another segment of our hour-long chat last week. In this part, we have real live fact-checking in media res:

Parts Four (with the fact-check), Five and Six after the jump. More here.

By Patrick
James Poulos mediates on atheism as a means to an end.

A geographical guide to Ludacris.

Just an update: I’m back but with some kind of flu, so Patrick is co-blogging for a few days. His posts are marked with his signature. Mine are the usual ones.

This, of course, will and should be a week to try to figure out what is actually happening in Iraq, and what our sanest course of future action is. It now seems clearer what happened last week: the Maliki government impetuously decided to move against Sadrist militias in Basra and Baghdad, over-shot the mark badly, and had to negotiate some kind of truce. There are credible reports that the Iranians were involved in negotiating the terms of the truce, as well as indications that Iran was also involved in the fighting itself.

It also seems clear that Maliki was not doing this entirely as a consequence of asserting the authority of a national government, but as a way to use the military force of the state to target political rivals in the forthcoming elections. Although violence is obviously down, the intra-Shiite tensions, the unstable truce in Diyala, terrorism in Baghdad, yesterday’s inconclusive attempt to get control of Sadr City, and difficulties in keeping Awakening tribes bribed well enough all point to continuing instability, teetering on the edge of potential breakdown. And that’s with troop levels maxed out, and the soldiers themselves, many on fourth tours, showing the signs of stress that such draining assignments will exact.

We should listen closely to Petraeus this week, but it’s hard not to avoid the conclusion that, as a new report states

political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

There has been no national reconciliation in Iraq; there have been cease-fires, aborted battles, political jockeying, bribing and re-arming. I truly cannot see what more we can ask of the troops trying to keep a fragile truce there from disintegrating. I cannot see a lasting settlement unless the various factions actually fight their way toward it. I cannot see a way to avoid Iran’s dominance of a large swathe of Iraq whether we stay or leave. My view, therefore, is that our policy should be to find as prudent and as swift a way to leave as possible. But if Petraeus can explain why this would be the worst option, I’m all ears.