There are some rumors floating around about my conversation with Sister Helen Prejean at the Athenaeum. In an effort to dispel them, I thought I would write about what actually happened.
(And lest, I anger my Catholic friends, I do not believe that simply being a nun makes you worthy of some super kind of respect outside of your own humanity -- as many of my religious friends have suggested. All of us put our pants on one leg at a time and besides, Prejean did not even pray before eating her food -- which makes me wonder how much of a nun she actually is.)
I was among eight students that sat down to have dinner with her in a room of perhaps more than a hundred or so students and members of the community who had turned out to hear her speak.
Sister Prejean assumed when she sat down with us that we were all supporters of a progressive agenda -- that we were all Obamaites, which despite the professed "balance" of CMC, all but one of us sitting at the head table were.
One of the the students said that while Obama was having a tough time, he was trying to undo the "damage" of the Bush years, to which Sister Prejean nodded. Another student said that he doesn't blame President Obama, but the congressional leadership.
I told her at that point that she was talking to a "divided" table, that I was a supporter of Senator-elect Scott Brown, for whom I am trying to work, and that I think President Obama has been rather disastrous for our community because of his recent decision to give terrorist "rights." (Later that evening, after the talk, Obama announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other terrorists would not be tried in NY.)
She replied that President Obama had given a very clear message that we do not torture and ended the awful torture of waterboarding, which as torture, is against the Geneva Convention.
I said that water boarding wasn't torture, that it has been effective in preventing future terrorist attacks, and that as it is not torture, and besides, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists picked up on a battlefield as they are not prisoners of war. And every time we have released Gitmo detainees, we have found them on the field of battle.
At which point, Paige Costello replied, "Wouldn't you? I can't believe you think waterboarding is not torture."
[I didn't say this at the time, but probably not Paige. I'd have nothing to do with terrorists or the U.S. military after being at Gitmo.]
Prejean replied that she had spoken with David LeBoeuf, one of the terrorists' attorneys, and that they said that at Gitmo "you could do anything you want" to the inmates.
I replied that defense counsel might have a reason to well, exaggerate the conditions of their clients and that I have known part of the prosecution team.
She replied that we have no way of knowing whether or not these guys are guilty -- and that some of them have just been taxi cab drivers picked up on the street.
She reiterated her disbelief that I thought waterboarding wasn't torture and that people have had their heads dunked into buckets of water.
I replied that that was a "canard" and challenged her to provide any factual evidence for waterboarding being performed that way and that it is not performed that way, but by dripping water on someone's face.
She said that it simulates drowning, and I said yes, but that the U.S. military routinely waterboards its own soldiers. Does the U.S. torture its own soldiers, then?
At that point, David Nahmias, suggested that we lower the heated nature of the discussion. I said do we not now have the right to ask tough questions of our guests? He replied that we do, but that we should let someone else talk.
Helen Prejean replied, "Yes, let someone else talk."
For those interested in the subject matter and why waterboarding is consistent with Catholic teaching, not to mention good U.S. policy, have a look at these videos here with Marc Thiessen.
Later on in the evening after everyone had said their piece about how bad the death penalty was, I continued to ask her some questions.
I asked her, in the wake of Roper v. Simmons, a court case that outlawed the execution of juveniles, whether or not she thought that the Supreme Court would overrule life without parole for juveniles.
She replied, "I hope so." She said that we know from science that the brain is not fully formed so young people cannot have a sense of culpability. When you are fourteen, you aren't thinking right, she said.
Part of the reason the U.S. did not sign the U.N. Convention of the Rights of Children was that we execute children, she explained, and we have had a Supreme Court that for the last twenty-five years has ignored international law.
(Of course that whole process strikes me as foolish. Simmons killed Shirley Cook in part because he knew he could not be executed as a seventeen year old. What does one think would happen with gang related killings if younger members wouldn't spend life in prison for conducting them? We would have child soldiers in our inner-city.)
I asked Prejean if she would support the death penalty if she knew that the person in prison was likely to kill again. For instance, I pointed to the instances of people using cell phones to order hits from their prison cells. She replied that it was unfortunate, but that we should work on making prisons safer. (A good follow up question, and one I did not get to ask because the Ath fellow was giving introduction is, "If the death penalty is really as bad as you say, why should we have prisons? Aren't they a failed institution too?)
I asked Prejean if she would support the death penalty if she knew that the person in prison was likely to kill again. For instance, I pointed to the instances of people using cell phones to order hits from their prison cells. She replied that it was unfortunate, but that we should work on making prisons safer. (A good follow up question, and one I did not get to ask because the Ath fellow was giving introduction is, "If the death penalty is really as bad as you say, why should we have prisons? Aren't they a failed institution too?)
Admittedly, this question was deliberate, in order for the death penalty to be impermissible within Catholic tradition Ms. Prejean has to show that the person being detained is incapable of doing further harm and defenseless, which many death penalty inmates are not. Some routinely kill other prisoners, especially if they have a life sentence or want to curry favor with the gangs with which they are affiliated.
Later, she told us her views of the movie based upon her book, Dead Man Walking. She also said that Tim Robbins movie version of her Dead Man Walking isn't anti-death penalty. It "brings you over to both sides, like all good art does."
Later, she told us her views of the movie based upon her book, Dead Man Walking. She also said that Tim Robbins movie version of her Dead Man Walking isn't anti-death penalty. It "brings you over to both sides, like all good art does."
17 comments:
Really? Waterboarding consists of "dripping water on someone's face"? Your level of factual misinformation here is approaching Ann Coulter levels, Charlie. Does this look like "dripping water on someone's face" to you? This isn't Chinese water torture, for Christ's sake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
I'm not even going to get into your ridiculous assertion that waterboarding is somehow consistent with Catholic teaching or is "good U.S. policy." For someone who professes to be such a committed student of American constitutional thought, you certainly appear to have no problem contravening it left, right, and center when it comes to "national security."
1. I didn't say it was pleasant. I think it's very disagreeable, but it does not leave permanent harm, as torture typically does. And yes, it is dripping water on someone's face.
The ridiculous claim is backed up by Marc Thiessen's book, which I have a copy of and you can borrow. As for good U.S. policy, which of the terrorist attacks we prevented by the use of waterboarding would you like to have liked slip by?
Come on David, this post can't surprise you can it?
You clearly didn't watch the Hitchens video I linked to; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to reassert that waterboarding is "dripping water on someone's face" without some serious cognitive dissonance. And I never accused you of calling it pleasant -- I was merely expressing the fact that you were greatly understating the severity of waterboarding as a technique.
Note also that neither the dictionary nor the legal definition mention anything about permanency of effect. To suggest that anything that doesn't leave any permanent physical marks doesn't qualify as torture is simply factually incorrect. In fact, that's the whole reason methods like waterboarding exist: to inflict torture without leaving tell-tale signs of physical abuse. Not to mention the fact that waterboarding, does indeed have long-lasting effects.
As for Marc Thiessen, I'll decline your book offer. I tend, as a rule, not to lend much credence to folks who publish books with such baldly partisan titles as "Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack". (Gee, I wonder if Mr. Thiessen might have any particular reason to deliberately distort or leave out any evidence or factual information that might go against the ridiculous assertion that waterboarding isn't torture?) Contrary to what Mr. Thiessen might think, waterboarding is not consistent with Catholic doctrine simply because it was used in the Spanish Inquisition.
Look, there's an irrefutable logic here. International law is clear on the legal definition of torture, as I showed above. The United States is a signatory to the law in question, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and has ratified it. The Convention states that its prohibition against torture is absolute: no circumstance may be invoked to excuse its use. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld affirmed that the Geneva Conventions still apply to the U.S., and that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 applied to all detainees in the "War on Terror." Mistreatment (including -- especially -- torture) of prisoners of war, under Common Article 3, constitutes a grave breach of the Conventions and is grounds for trying the offender(s) for war crimes.
I don't understand why so-called "conservatives" still think this is still an open question. It never was, and never will be. Waterboarding is torture. It is illegal under international law, and in complete opposition to the principles of the Constitution. There is absolutely no reputable basis on which waterboarding or other forms of torture can be defended. End of story.
As I understand it, Hitchens was not waterboarded in the manner used at Gitmo, which by the way was only used three times. The manner used at the Spanish Inquisition is entirely different from the practice that is used in the U.S. But let me be clear: it is a very disturbing process, but it has worked in getting intelligence the three times it was used. (Thiessen explains in the video why it is consistent with Catholic teaching, so there's not much to go over there, especially seeing as neither you, nor I are Catholics.)
I know your beloved Andrew Sullivan makes a big point about not leaving marks, but the point is that for the purposes of U.S. law torture is defined as leaving serious marks, which is partly why John Yoo found it constitutional to use waterboarding. Waterboarding at the hands of a trained professional does not leave marks.
There is a serious constitutional question as to whether the Senate has the kind of authority to enter into treaties that limit the executives power to protect the country. The very existence of a "no circumstance" clause is grounds for it being a violation of the supremacy clause.
As for the point about the court case, that's mistaken. The Court merely ruled that the detainees should be removed from Gitmo and that the Court's review still applies. That's it.
"Three times"? You can't be serious. You're asserting things that can be easily disproven with a simple Google or Wikipedia search. Between KSM and Abu Zubaydah alone, there were a total of 266 instances of waterboarding. You'll note that that article also states that CIA officials waterboarded "both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the C.I.A. rules permitted." If anything, Hitchens' waterboarding was less severe than what was used at Gitmo. If you have some sort of reputable source to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
You'll note further that I made not a single reference to Andrew Sullivan or his blog, although I freely admit (as you well know) that I read him regularly and have great respect for many of his opinions and principles. But I'm not appealing to him in making my argument. I'm appealing to publicly-available and verifiable information about international law.
The idea that the Constitution could prohibit the Senate from ratifying international law on the basis that it somehow limited executive power is preposterous. Nowhere in the Constitution is the executive guaranteed unabridged powers in prosecuting a conflict. Regardless, the Constitution does recognize the legitimacy of customary international law, and the US Code itself refutes your assertion that defining torture is contingent on permanency of effect under U.S. law.
Finally, the first two sentences of Wikipedia's article on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld make explicit references to violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
Gitmo and torture are intimately connected. If you remove the detainees from Gitmo, you remove the threat of torture, and you can start to repair the damage done by this abhorrent and, frankly, shameful period in American history. Once we've gotten rid of the specter of Gitmo, torture, and all that came with it, we can return this country to its position as "a shining beacon on the hill" -- which is something I know you and I can both agree on.
Since I don't want to re-do all that formatting, let me just say that the bit about "the threat of torture" should read, "the stigma of torture."
Correct. I misspoke. I meant to say that waterboarding had been performed only three times, by which I meant to say that it had been performed on only three individuals.
I do not know if that memorandum is authentic, as it is illegal for whoever sent it to leak it or that a subsequent memorandum did not overrule it. I will grant that it is accurate and the point here is "so what?" The frequency of waterboarding may be that they had
The story you mentioned has serious holes with it. For one, Kirakou was never in the room with the interrogators and has since gotten in trouble for lying about it. We have known from declassified documents that it occurred routinely to these three men, but we also know that it saved lives and prevented several attacks against us by giving us actionable intelligence.
As for the unitary executive theory, it has long antecedents. It is the president that is commander in chief and the president is not necessarily bound in his execution of the war by the Senate's Geneva Convention, assuming it has anything to say about enemy combatants as opposed to prisoners of war.
I do not see this period as a shameful one in U.S. history, but as a very hopeful one in which the U.S. government kept us safe in the face of huge odds.
"Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx
"Death Penalty Support: Christian Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx
"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution--very-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx
"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx
"Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html
"Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
"At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx
I removed the comment saying that I was "delusional." I certainly don't think that I, the CIA, several members of the media, and an entire wing of the Republican party (and maybe even a chunk of the Democratic party) all share the same delusion. If the anonymous poster would clarify as to why I am delusional, I will gladly leave up his comment.
You're not delusional, you're a jerk. You were rude to a guest at the head table. I just hope the Ath uses the new lottery system to make sure this never happens again.
I was not, but you can be sure that I'll be recording my next head table experience so that I can hedge against people lying about me.
I finally got around to watching that video. Suffice it to say I was not surprised: Marc Thiessen is an idiot. A somewhat more sophisticated version of your typical neocon idiot, to be sure, but an idiot nonetheless.
People who oppose torture are "radical pacifists"? Utter hogwash. Conor Friedersdorf has a pretty good, if brief, piece on this. A couple of commenters also make excellent points on why torture is like revenge killings and legal sacrifice that should be required of those committing the intrinsic evil of torture to prevent a greater evil.
*the legal sacrifice that should be required...
lol citing Mark Thiessen, Charlie? That's pretty lame.
Post a Comment