Alberto Mora: "I never met a senior military officer that didn't object

[Cletus Wilbury]

Any comments on this? I especially liked the 'long term strategic interests of the United States' argument regarding this topic.


Nothing but the Truth on Torture (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/03iht-letter04web.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) - May 3, 2009




Alberto Mora says it's "politically unthinkable" to criminally prosecute the top Bush administration officials who sanctioned torture. He also says it's "legally unthinkable" not to hold them accountable.
...a once-staunch political conservative whom President George W. Bush appointed as general counsel of the U.S. Navy in 2001. Mr. Mora was horrified at the legal justifications for the "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding. After he left, he became an outspoken critic.
...
Says Mr. Mora: "I never met a senior military officer that didn't object to these policies. They caused the senior military to hold the Bush administration in contempt."
....
"Torture is antithetical to our values, the rule of law and our national security interests," Mr. Mora says.
...



To paraphrase a great Republican President: far above my poor power to add or detract.

[ddye]

I can only conclude that senior military officers hate America.

Doug

[Cletus Wilbury]

The Memo (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact) -
February 27, 2006

Nine page article about the story of Mora's (and others) military lawyers work on this topic.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I can only conclude that senior military officers hate America.

Doug

Nah, just the ones that this guy SAYS he spoke to.

Kind of like when Nixon won, the media couldn't believe it because they didn't know anybody that voted for him!:lol:

[Mustang JEB]

Nah, just the ones that this guy SAY he spoke to.

Kind of like when Nixon won, the media couldn't believe it because they didn't know anybody that voted for him!:lol:

Exactly.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Nah, just the ones that this guy SAY he spoke to.

Kind of like when Nixon won, the media couldn't believe it because they didn't know anybody that voted for him!:lol:

Right, because a journalist and the general counsel for the Navy are a great comparison.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Related background info :


Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel, to the Inspector General of the Navy, is “Statement for the Record: Office of General Counsel Involvement in Interrogation Issues.” (http://www.newyorker.com/images/pdf/2006/02/27/moramemo.pdf)

by Alberto Mora (http://www.newyorker.com/search/query?query=authorName:%22Alberto%20Mora%22) July 7, 2004



Statement of
Alberto J. Mora
Senate Committee on Armed Services
Hearing on the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/June/Mora%2006-17-08.pdf)
June 17, 2008


Certainly, the admission that waterboarding – a classic and reviled method of torture – was applied to some detainees creates the presumption that those detainees so interrogated were tortured.


Just because I quote something doesn't mean I agree with it. But in the case of the above , I do agree. Especially the part I bolded.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Nah, just the ones that this guy SAYS he spoke to.

Kind of like when Nixon won, the media couldn't believe it because they didn't know anybody that voted for him!:lol:

Indeed. It would help us to know, ballpark figure, how many people Mora was talking about there.

[Cletus Wilbury]

(my typing from photo pdf)

...
This treatment - which the NCIS agents had not participated in or witnesses - was allegedly being inflicted by personnel attached to JTF-170, the intelligence task force, and was rumored to have been authorized, at least in part, at a "high level" in Washington, although NCIS had not seen the text of this authority. The NCIS agents at Guantanamo and civilian and military personnel from other services were upset at this mistreatment and regard such treatment as unlawful and in violation of American values. ...


So there's some indication that he did talk to some people regarding the issue.

[ArmyMAJretired]

Gee I wonder if Mr, Mora ever spoke to anyone about how the guards are abused at GITMO?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122554/

Memo: Gitmo detainees often attack guards
Prisoners use utensils, bodily waste, lizard tail to fight U.S. officials
updated 4:31 p.m. ET, Mon., July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON - The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay during the war on terror have attacked their military guards hundreds of times, turning broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons, Pentagon reports say.

Incident reports reviewed by The Associated Press indicate Military Police guards are routinely head-butted, spat upon and doused by “cocktails” of feces, urine, vomit and sperm collected in meal cups by the prisoners.

They’ve been repeatedly grabbed, punched or assaulted by prisoners who reach through the small “bean holes” used to deliver food and blankets through cell doors, the reports say. Serious assaults requiring medical attention, however, are rare, the reports indicate.

[ModerateVoice]

Gee I wonder if Mr, Mora ever spoke to anyone about how the guards are abused at GITMO?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122554/

Memo: Gitmo detainees often attack guards
Prisoners use utensils, bodily waste, lizard tail to fight U.S. officials
updated 4:31 p.m. ET, Mon., July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON - The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay during the war on terror have attacked their military guards hundreds of times, turning broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons, Pentagon reports say.

Incident reports reviewed by The Associated Press indicate Military Police guards are routinely head-butted, spat upon and doused by “cocktails” of feces, urine, vomit and sperm collected in meal cups by the prisoners.

They’ve been repeatedly grabbed, punched or assaulted by prisoners who reach through the small “bean holes” used to deliver food and blankets through cell doors, the reports say. Serious assaults requiring medical attention, however, are rare, the reports indicate.

SSSSHHHHHHH....liberals don't like it when you point out that the enemy is mean.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Dan Rather Interviews Alberto J. Mora, Former U.S. Navy General Counsel (http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5404.html)



DAN RATHER: Let me back up for a moment. Your job at the time was?
ALBERTO MORA: I was General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, which made me the chief legal officer of the Navy and Marine Corps.
DAN RATHER: And your direct superior?
ALBERTO MORA: Was the Secretary of the Navy.



Seems like a guy they might have wanted to talk about regarding this topic. Unless of course they knew what the answer would be.

[ArmyMAJretired]

Dan Rather Interviews Alberto J. Mora, Former U.S. Navy General Counsel (http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5404.html)





Seems like a guy they might have wanted to talk about regarding this topic. Unless of course they knew what the answer would be.

So what do the chief legal officers of the Army and Airforce say?

Seems he is dealing in the POLITICAL, which is not his area of expertise.

JMHO

[Cletus Wilbury]

So what do the chief legal officers of the Army and Airforce say?

Seems he is dealing in the POLITICAL, which is not his area of expertise.

JMHO

He talks about it in the Dan Rather interview I linked below. He also talks about the legal issues, some I hadn't heard yet.

Some parts that at least somewhat contradict Mora's more recent claim about everybody he's talked to:


ALBERTO MORA: I tried to track down these authorities they had discussed. I called the Army General Counsel, who was a good friend...
He said, "I know a lot about this. Come on down." ....The documents indicated that it went up the chain of command ... The documents had Secretary Rumsfeld's signature, indicating approval of some, not all, of the techniques....


perhaps explaining the discrepancy:

But I also felt throughout my initial review that this was all a mistake, meaning that up and down the chain of command nobody had really thought through seriously enough what the implications of the authority requested and granted was, and that had they known they would never have given this kind of authority.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Very easy to take the moral high ground when you aren't the one that has to hold it.

and was rumored
Have a nice day.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Posted countless times over the last 7+ years, from the guy I had been reading on foreign policy for many years prior: We must not give a victory to our enemies (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego-sub/access/80620065.html?dids=80620065:80620065&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+12%2C+2001&author=James+O.+Goldsborough&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&edition=&startpage=B.7&desc=We+must+not+give+a+victory+to+our+enemies) by James O. Goldsborough - Sep 12, 2001

....
The goal is to provoke us into indiscriminate actions that open a rift with our Middle East friends. Whatever our grief and anger, we must not give that victory to our enemies.
The usual reply has been "What Middle East Friends?'. If there are none, why was Bush kissing the Saudi King?
Why are we trying to set up a government in Iraq?
(for just two examples)

[ChrisRP]

SSSSHHHHHHH....liberals don't like it when you point out that the enemy is mean.

So we should hold ourselves to the standards of our enemies?

Is that what you're saying here?

[Cletus Wilbury]

[quote=Cletus Wilbury;53868561] We must not give a victory to our enemies (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego-sub/access/80620065.html?dids=80620065:80620065&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+12%2C+2001&author=James+O.+Goldsborough&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&edition=&startpage=B.7&desc=We+must+not+give+a+victory+to+our+enemies) by James O. Goldsborough - Sep 12, 2001

That' from the U-T archives. I have a subscription to the paper. Does it work for people without a subscription? probably not.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Rice to 4th grade class: "We were all so terrified of another attack on the country."




Fear is the mind killer.

[ArmyMAJretired]

But I also felt throughout my initial review that this was all a mistake, meaning that up and down the chain of command nobody had really thought through seriously enough what the implications of the authority requested and granted was, and that had they known they would never have given this kind of authority.

My someone has an inflated opinion of themself.

How can everone else be so wrong and I be so right?

It's his OPINION. OPINIONS are like *******s, everyone has one and they all stink.

JMHO

[Cletus Wilbury]

...

JMHO

And thanks for adding them. Much better than being totally ignored.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

So we should hold ourselves to the standards of our enemies?

Is that what you're saying here?

We could burn members of AQ at the stake and still not have lowered ourselves to their standard.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Apparently his arguments were rather convincing to some:


So there was a whole battery of reasons, ranging both from the law, to foreign policy, to security policy, all of which argued that a policy of cruelty was not in our best interests..... After he had reviewed the memorandum, he called me and he said that he had good news: that he had talked to Secretary Rumsfeld about it, and that Secretary Rumsfeld was prepared to rescind those authorities. In fact, the Secretary did rescind those authorities that day.

[penner01]

Dan Rather Interviews Alberto J. Mora, Former U.S. Navy General Counsel (http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5404.html)





Seems like a guy they might have wanted to talk about regarding this topic. Unless of course they knew what the answer would be.
I suppose. The Navy probably knows more about drowning...right?

[penner01]

Very easy to take the moral high ground when you aren't the one that has to hold it.Very good. Frankly, I don't think that in select instances agents of the U.S. have taken extraordinary measures necessarily cedes the "moral hight ground" anyway......but as you say......let's let the libs try to keep that ground for us.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I suppose. The Navy probably knows more about drowning...right?

Or military law?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Apparently his arguments were rather convincing to some:

"Cruelty" is subjective and emotional.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Mora:

American history shows that when the nation is attacked and our citizens are both afraid and angry, then many citizens are willing to bend the rules for what they perceive to be a measure that is necessary for their safety. I think that is what happened in this kind of case. We both dehumanized the enemy and, because we were acting somewhat out of fear, we felt that these measures were necessary to protect Americans. I think those were the underlying assumptions and beliefs that led to the application of these measures.


Another opinion on the fear angle, in addition to Rice's.

[Cletus Wilbury]

"Cruelty" is subjective and emotional.

Mora said those are the terms used in the law, if I remember what I just read correctly.

If you want to change the law, that's a different issue.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Mora said those are the terms used in the law, if I remember what I just read correctly.

If you want to change the law, that's a different issue.

Feel free to show the quote. I quoted you and that's not what he says.

[toreyj01]

The only debate about torture is whether you are going to get in trouble admitting you did it.

It's not torture as long as you are afraid of going to jail, if Obama offered clemency the global chorus from the inquisitors would be "yep, thats torture". And since its Obama looking into it, partisan folk will have to swallow what is an incredibly bitter pill and actually try to rationalize this mess.

One of the main reasons I feel sorry for a Republican now, the stances you have to take to oppose Obama. Pro-torture? Thats getting the wrong end of the stick, isn't it?

[Cletus Wilbury]

Feel free to show the quote. I quoted you and that's not what he says.

There's some about it in the Rather interview. Here's a part.


DAN RATHER: Help us understand. In abuse or mistreatment, cruelty, and torture, what distinctions do you make between abuse, mistreatment, cruelty, torture? Give us a rough definition of terms. ALBERTO MORA: It is very difficult to define. One can say the classic definition, which is that cruelty is the imposition of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person.
Torture is an extreme version of cruelty. The distinction is important because there is a legal distinction, both in domestic law and international law, between cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, on the one hand, and then torture, on the other.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

There's some about it in the Rather interview. Here's a part.

Just like I said.

[Critical Bill]

So we should hold ourselves to the standards of our enemies?

Is that what you're saying here?There is night and day difference between us and AQ. Both ideologically and tactically. Interrogating them doesn't even come close to equating ourselves to them.

[Cletus Wilbury]

.... Pro-torture? Thats getting the wrong end of the stick, isn't it?

I don't think it's in their long term strategic interest either.

[Critical Bill]

Pro-torture? Thats getting the wrong end of the stick, isn't it?
It's not "prol-torture". It's pro-interrogtion. And, pro-interrogation is in the best interests of our national security.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Just like I said.

Perhaps more to the point:


Rather: You have spoken about crossing the line of cruelty. Where is the line?

ALBERTO MORA: It's difficult to say. This is one of those terms in the law that does not lend itself to a very precise, mathematical definition. Which is not to say that the boundary doesn't exist, because there are many terms in the law that have somewhat vague terms.


So, yes it is subjective. But so are many terms in the law. So, your point is that different people can have different views as to how to interpret it?

Good point.

one counter point Mora discussed later in the Rather interview:


Our traditional allies all have laws that make it a criminal activity to apply cruelty. These individuals in these nations have not been able to cooperate with us as we would have wished because their cooperation in cruel treatment is a criminal act under their legislation. So it has inhibited the formation and maintenance of a broad-based coalition to fight the war on terror, and it would continue to have this effect to the extent that the United States continues to pursue a policy of cruelty.


He's saying we have good reasons to make our interpretations at least somewhat consistent with the views of our trading partners.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

He's saying we have good reasons to make our interpretations at least somewhat consistent with the views of our trading partners.What a nice way of saying "We should kiss the EU's collective ass." Since when is the general counsel of the USN the arbiter of foreign trade?

[penner01]

Or military law?Look you have one that says he's talked to some others. You don't suspect that is true on boths sides of this issue? I'm not in the least swayed but what I read here.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Look you have one that says he's talked to some others. You don't suspect that is true on boths sides of this issue? I'm not in the least swayed but what I read here.

Thank you for reading it, and your replies. I think one thing this shows is that what Mora had previously understood as 'rumors' of abuse has turned out to have at least somewhat accurate.

I have been criticized for quoting too much from articles by the moderator, the 'fair use' thing. I don't think I crossed the line previously, but I'm trying to keep a lid on it. Other stuff worth reading in the links I provided at the beginning of this thread.

[toreyj01]

It's not "prol-torture". It's pro-interrogtion. And, pro-interrogation is in the best interests of our national security.

Oooops sorry I meant pro-"interrogation".

/torture

Man, that could just eat one up inside.

[Cletus Wilbury]

...
Man, that could just eat one up inside.

It does me, Torey.