Macho Posturing Does Not Make Us Safer

Speaking to Politico last Tuesday, former Vice-President Richard Cheney opined:

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.”

Sadly, this is a sentiment that Amnesty International volunteers hear a lot as they engage in the debate on the abuse of detainees. It is also a line of argument that can be easily rebuffed.

The bottom line is that such macho posturing does the national security of this country no favors.  Due process rights keep us honest but they also make us smarter. They hold law enforcement, military and intelligence officers to a higher standard.  A standard that holds mere assertion, hearsay and innuendo is not sufficient to deprive an individual of his or her liberty; A standard that requires official action to be based on the collection of facts – evidence – that will stand up in court; That ensures skilled interviewing by trained and experienced investigators replaces mindless bullying and produces better intelligence; That guarantees fewer miscarriages of justice.

The former Vice-President is not wrong to highlight the threat from terrorism.  The threat has not gone away and, if anything, the Bush Administration’s policies over the past seven years have ensured that the threat is greater now than it has ever been.  Terrorism is the ultimate human rights abuse and Amnesty International is as steadfast in its condemnation and opposition to such tactics as it is to the use of torture and indefinite detention by government agents.

Macho posturing is no substitute for effective counterterrorism policies.  And passion is no substitute for competence.  Human rights standards keep us smarter and make our counterterrorism efforts more effective.  No democratic state that has betrayed these basic principles has ever successively defeated a terrorist threat.  Bitter experience teaches us that the war on terror can only be fought and won from the moral high ground.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

26 thoughts on “Macho Posturing Does Not Make Us Safer

  1. "the Bush Administration’s policies over the past seven years have ensured that the threat is greater now than it has ever been"…Really? Really? You honestly believe this?

    His policies may have pissed off radical jihadist terrorists that hate us infidels, it may have pissed off the ACLU, it has obviously had an effect on you… but there is little in the form of retaliation al-qaeda can do about it today. Bottom line, U.S. citizens, our cities and our borders are safer now.

    Prior to Bush's Administration Afghanistan / Taliban harbored al-qaeda and the country was packed full of training camps. Opening camps and training whereever/whenever. Not so much these days.

    Prior to Bush's Administration UBL moved and communicated with relative ease, now he is likely rotting away in some cave and where he must spend whatever is left of his short-to-be for sure life and/or freedom. and he represents less a threat then ever before.

    There has not been a successful attack on the U.S.A. since 9/11. There are certainly areas you can question and be critical of our former President and Vice President of the U.S., but suggesting we are less safe today then we were eight years ago and suggesting Bush Administration policies have made us "less-safe" is pretty ridiculous if you honestly think about it.

    You could Argue all you want for "human rights"…argue morality against the use of "waterboarding"…argue all you want that department of defense detainees determined to be enemy combatants, detained during a time of armed conflict, and already afforded more rights then any other detainees in the history of U.S. Conflict should be protected by the U.S. Constititution and afforded the same rights under law if you or I were detained and charged with a crime…etc… But the U.S. from sea to shining sea is safer today.

    When the remaining 240 or so detainees get cut loose because of technicalities and the burden of proof in a u.s. federal court…that is the time we will be less safe.

    Despite the executive order, President Obama is beginning to understand this. Otherwise he would have caved to organizations like yours and it wouldn't take a year to close GITMO. He is responsible now for more then just being popular and winning votes. He is responsible for National Security and doesn't want to be the guy who cuts loose the next suicide bomber or the next Yemen's "al-qaeda number 2" simply because the evidence doesn't stand the
    burden of a federal trial.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror-free since 9-11-2001

  2. You could claim that U.S. policy on the “war on terror” over the past eight years has made us more or less safe, but it’s rather hard to prove.

    To say “We haven’t had a terrorist attack since 9/11” is rather weak evidence of Bush’s success (if you can call it evidence). Remember, the Clinton Administration accomplished the exact same thing after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

    Most people engaged in this debate want to keep the U.S. safe. Some of us believe in the values America was founded on – democracy and due process of law, and the strength of our federal courts. Some think that we must depend on more forceful measures in order to absolutely ensure security. But those who believe the former also believe that U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and in secret prisons not only violate numerous international laws, but also will weaken our national security in the long run by proliferating anti-American sentiment.

    To those who think that allowing torture, violating the Geneva Convention, and reaffirming ideas about the tyranny and hypocrisy of the U.S. to the rest of the world will keep us safe from terrorists down the road… I’ve got to say I’m not convinced that’s the best route.

    It's time to see the forest through the trees.

  3. I'm challenging the assumption that BECAUSE of the Bush administration we are less safe. If the lack of another attack is "weak evidence" what "evidence" supports that we are less safe because of previous administration's policy?

    If locking up enemy combatants is "proliferating anti-American sentiment" then I say oh well…and it is certainly the less of two evils. I'd rather disgruntle radical terrorists that hate us anyway, then make them happy by releasing enemy combatants back to the jihad.

    Watch the morphing Obama administration closely, they now know more about these "victims" being housed at GITMO than you and he will act accordingly. The campaign rhetoric has all but come to a screaching halt. Even if GITMO closes, the majority of those enemy combatants are going to remain detained somewhere….with or without a U.S. Federal Trial (WHICH has never been nor should ever be a prerequisite for the Department of Defense to detain enemy combatants that CONTINUE to pose a threat during armed conflict).

    Tyranny and Hypocracy? Yeah…I know. All we need to do is convert, cover our women, kill all the infidels, join the jihad, and destroy capitalism and democracy…then we can put an end to the war on terror…and we can all live in peace. There is no middle ground for those you are advocating for. That is the cold-hard truth.

    Thank you for acknowledging my post and engaging debate.

    I see the forest AND the trees.

  4. “the Bush Administration’s policies over the past seven years have ensured that the threat is greater now than it has ever been”…Really? Really? You honestly believe this?

    His policies may have pissed off radical jihadist terrorists that hate us infidels, it may have pissed off the ACLU, it has obviously had an effect on you… but there is little in the form of retaliation al-qaeda can do about it today. Bottom line, U.S. citizens, our cities and our borders are safer now.

    Prior to Bush’s Administration Afghanistan / Taliban harbored al-qaeda and the country was packed full of training camps. Opening camps and training whereever/whenever. Not so much these days.

    Prior to Bush’s Administration UBL moved and communicated with relative ease, now he is likely rotting away in some cave and where he must spend whatever is left of his short-to-be for sure life and/or freedom. and he represents less a threat then ever before.

    There has not been a successful attack on the U.S.A. since 9/11. There are certainly areas you can question and be critical of our former President and Vice President of the U.S., but suggesting we are less safe today then we were eight years ago and suggesting Bush Administration policies have made us “less-safe” is pretty ridiculous if you honestly think about it.

    You could Argue all you want for “human rights”…argue morality against the use of “waterboarding”…argue all you want that department of defense detainees determined to be enemy combatants, detained during a time of armed conflict, and already afforded more rights then any other detainees in the history of U.S. Conflict should be protected by the U.S. Constititution and afforded the same rights under law if you or I were detained and charged with a crime…etc… But the U.S. from sea to shining sea is safer today.

    When the remaining 240 or so detainees get cut loose because of technicalities and the burden of proof in a u.s. federal court…that is the time we will be less safe.

    Despite the executive order, President Obama is beginning to understand this. Otherwise he would have caved to organizations like yours and it wouldn’t take a year to close GITMO. He is responsible now for more then just being popular and winning votes. He is responsible for National Security and doesn’t want to be the guy who cuts loose the next suicide bomber or the next Yemen’s “al-qaeda number 2” simply because the evidence doesn’t stand the
    burden of a federal trial.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror-free since 9-11-2001

  5. You could claim that U.S. policy on the “war on terror” over the past eight years has made us more or less safe, but it’s rather hard to prove.

    To say “We haven’t had a terrorist attack since 9/11” is rather weak evidence of Bush’s success (if you can call it evidence). Remember, the Clinton Administration accomplished the exact same thing after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

    Most people engaged in this debate want to keep the U.S. safe. Some of us believe in the values America was founded on – democracy and due process of law, and the strength of our federal courts. Some think that we must depend on more forceful measures in order to absolutely ensure security. But those who believe the former also believe that U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and in secret prisons not only violate numerous international laws, but also will weaken our national security in the long run by proliferating anti-American sentiment.

    To those who think that allowing torture, violating the Geneva Convention, and reaffirming ideas about the tyranny and hypocrisy of the U.S. to the rest of the world will keep us safe from terrorists down the road… I’ve got to say I’m not convinced that’s the best route.

    It’s time to see the forest through the trees.

  6. I’m challenging the assumption that BECAUSE of the Bush administration we are less safe. If the lack of another attack is “weak evidence” what “evidence” supports that we are less safe because of previous administration’s policy?

    If locking up enemy combatants is “proliferating anti-American sentiment” then I say oh well…and it is certainly the less of two evils. I’d rather disgruntle radical terrorists that hate us anyway, then make them happy by releasing enemy combatants back to the jihad.

    Watch the morphing Obama administration closely, they now know more about these “victims” being housed at GITMO than you and he will act accordingly. The campaign rhetoric has all but come to a screaching halt. Even if GITMO closes, the majority of those enemy combatants are going to remain detained somewhere….with or without a U.S. Federal Trial (WHICH has never been nor should ever be a prerequisite for the Department of Defense to detain enemy combatants that CONTINUE to pose a threat during armed conflict).

    Tyranny and Hypocracy? Yeah…I know. All we need to do is convert, cover our women, kill all the infidels, join the jihad, and destroy capitalism and democracy…then we can put an end to the war on terror…and we can all live in peace. There is no middle ground for those you are advocating for. That is the cold-hard truth.

    Thank you for acknowledging my post and engaging debate.

    I see the forest AND the trees.

  7. MSG: Among other things, it needs to be pointed out that if any dangerous detainees cannot be prosecuted and get "cut loose" from Guantanamo Bay, it will be because they were tortured and any potentially useful testimony they gave is now inadmissible. That is not a "technicality" – that is the consequence of irresponsible leadership by none other than George W. Bush.

  8. MSG: Among other things, it needs to be pointed out that if any dangerous detainees cannot be prosecuted and get “cut loose” from Guantanamo Bay, it will be because they were tortured and any potentially useful testimony they gave is now inadmissible. That is not a “technicality” – that is the consequence of irresponsible leadership by none other than George W. Bush.

  9. Thanks shaking head

    Brings me back to the point that an enemy combatant that poses a threat is an enemy combatant that poses a threat with or without a federal prosecution. Nothing is illegal about detaining enemy combatants

    And by the way, no one is getting tortured at GITMO The Army Field Manual covering interegation techniques is more "suspect friendly" then your average size city law enforcement policies and practices

    Enjoy your freedom and your terror-free Nation

  10. Thanks shaking head

    Brings me back to the point that an enemy combatant that poses a threat is an enemy combatant that poses a threat with or without a federal prosecution. Nothing is illegal about detaining enemy combatants

    And by the way, no one is getting tortured at GITMO The Army Field Manual covering interegation techniques is more “suspect friendly” then your average size city law enforcement policies and practices

    Enjoy your freedom and your terror-free Nation

  11. "And by the way, no one is getting tortured at GITMO The Army Field Manual covering interegation techniques is more “suspect friendly” then your average size city law enforcement policies and practices"

    How so? I'm not trying to start a fight; I don't know what it says.

  12. “And by the way, no one is getting tortured at GITMO The Army Field Manual covering interegation techniques is more “suspect friendly” then your average size city law enforcement policies and practices”

    How so? I’m not trying to start a fight; I don’t know what it says.

  13. Below is just one paragraph from the 200 or so page "FM 34-52" The U.S. Army's Field Manual for Intelligence Interrogation.

    Google FM 34-52 Army Interrogation if you want to see more.

    I speak from first hand experience that all Armed Forces personnel at GITMO follow the same Field Manual. There is a lot of supervision and oversight. The stories you here (particular from the likes of Binyam Mohamed)…(released detainee)…claiming guards and interrogators beat him are the biggest pile of crap you can imagine.

    Below is one chapter straight from the manual:

    PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
    The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

    The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

    Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

  14. Below is just one paragraph from the 200 or so page “FM 34-52” The U.S. Army’s Field Manual for Intelligence Interrogation.

    Google FM 34-52 Army Interrogation if you want to see more.

    I speak from first hand experience that all Armed Forces personnel at GITMO follow the same Field Manual. There is a lot of supervision and oversight. The stories you here (particular from the likes of Binyam Mohamed)…(released detainee)…claiming guards and interrogators beat him are the biggest pile of crap you can imagine.

    Below is one chapter straight from the manual:

    PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
    The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

    The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

    Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

  15. re: "macho posturing"

    Dick Cheney's quote has nothing to do with "macho posturing", and everything to do with national defense.

    re: "Due process rights keep us honest but they also make us smarter."

    No, due process rights have no effect whatsoever on intellectual ability. Only the writer's arrogance can create the necessary self-delusion to assume his or position regarding due process rights infers superior intellect.

    re: "The threat has not gone away and, if anything, the Bush Administration’s policies over the past seven years have ensured that the threat is greater now than it has ever been."

    Simply false.

    re: "Terrorism is the ultimate human rights abuse and Amnesty International is as steadfast in its condemnation and opposition to such tactics as it is to the use of torture and indefinite detention by government agents."

    Oh, really? Can I see a report on the human rights abuse by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban that is larger than the 308-page report by Amnesty International on Guantanamo?

    Where is the support by Amnesty International for the USA's efforts, under the leadership of Bush or the current president, against terrorism by such organizations and others?

    Sorry, but while I have supported Amnesty International's efforts on behalf of human rights for many years, my support ends now, and will not be regained until Amnesty International recants and disavows its condemnation of USA's efforts to support human rights by bringing the battle directly to terrorists and confront terrorism head-on, for the safety and benefit of US citizens and the entire international community.

  16. re: “macho posturing”

    Dick Cheney’s quote has nothing to do with “macho posturing”, and everything to do with national defense.

    re: “Due process rights keep us honest but they also make us smarter.”

    No, due process rights have no effect whatsoever on intellectual ability. Only the writer’s arrogance can create the necessary self-delusion to assume his or position regarding due process rights infers superior intellect.

    re: “The threat has not gone away and, if anything, the Bush Administration’s policies over the past seven years have ensured that the threat is greater now than it has ever been.”

    Simply false.

    re: “Terrorism is the ultimate human rights abuse and Amnesty International is as steadfast in its condemnation and opposition to such tactics as it is to the use of torture and indefinite detention by government agents.”

    Oh, really? Can I see a report on the human rights abuse by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban that is larger than the 308-page report by Amnesty International on Guantanamo?

    Where is the support by Amnesty International for the USA’s efforts, under the leadership of Bush or the current president, against terrorism by such organizations and others?

    Sorry, but while I have supported Amnesty International’s efforts on behalf of human rights for many years, my support ends now, and will not be regained until Amnesty International recants and disavows its condemnation of USA’s efforts to support human rights by bringing the battle directly to terrorists and confront terrorism head-on, for the safety and benefit of US citizens and the entire international community.

  17. American Citizen-

    THANK YOU!!

    It has been a month and nothing. You were able to articulate better then I and share in the same frustration with this activist organization's short-sightedness on this issue.

    They would rather condemn our own nation and those trying to protect it then the real human rights abuses carried out by the likes of al-qaeda.

  18. American Citizen-

    THANK YOU!!

    It has been a month and nothing. You were able to articulate better then I and share in the same frustration with this activist organization’s short-sightedness on this issue.

    They would rather condemn our own nation and those trying to protect it then the real human rights abuses carried out by the likes of al-qaeda.

Comments are closed.