Retired generals knock Cheney and supporters on effectiveness and morality of "enhanced interrogation"

At some point in the debate about both the morality and effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation techniques," the Bush Administration and its supporters euphemism for what many would call torture, you have to decide who you will believe. Those who claim to have knowledge and experience, and those that do.

Retired generals bluntly, publicly call out Cheney and his views

Over the last year, former Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively defended enhanced interrogation techniques as not only effective, but also legal and necessary (see this post). Previously, we have heard many come out against the practices, notably including retired General Colin Powell. On Friday, in an editorial in the Miami Herald, two more retired US generals, former Marine Corps Commandant Charles Kurlak and former chief of US Central Command Joseph Hoar, made it clear that they absolutely disagree with Cheney and his pro-enhanced interrogation supporters.

In the editorial, titled "Fear was no excuse to condone torture," the retired 4-star generals:

• Didn't shy away from blaming Cheney: "In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics ... And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to 'the dark side' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture 'worked' and that our country is better off for having gone there."
• Make it clear they don't believe the techniques work: "We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques ... Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did."
• Claim that torture destroys our moral high ground and can impact the judgement of US personnel: "Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor ... Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed."
• Believe torture makes us less safe: "As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most."

Trusting those who served or those who avoided

It's important to once again remember that retired generals Kurlak and Hoar are not the only military leaders who take this position. But even if they were, it is time for those who have supported the vice president and his claims to make a choice: To take the word and believe the wisdom of decorated US veterans and former military leaders, or to fall in lock step with a the former VP, a man who received five deferments during the Vietnam War.

It seems that those who back Cheney either want to believe that we did right or simply refuse to listen to the opinions of those that differ, no matter how compelling their resumes are. They don't want to admit mistakes even if a mistake is blatant. But most often, it is better to admit the US was wrong (the treatment of native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the use of chemical agents in Vietnam, etc.) and learn from past mistakes than to remain stubborn when all that stubbornness can do is to diminish the greatness of a country that has, does, and will make mistakes.

Whether we admit our errors to uphold the ideals of our country or to protect US servicemen, it is an exercise we should embrace. And by admitting our faults and correcting our poor judgement, we can reclaim some of that moral high ground that White House-sanctioned "enhanced interrogation" eroded.

On not showing the president's address to school children

President Obama's upcoming speech to the school children of America has become a major hot potato for school administrator's across the country, largely as a result of the campaign of conservative politicians and media pundits to force schools not to show it. Those against showing the address claim the speech is a thinly veiled attempt by the president to promote his "socialist agenda" to American children.

The result has been that many in charge of school districts have decided to not show the video, despite similar, previous addresses by Republican presidents (Reagan and Bush I). What follows is an open letter written to the school superintendent of Georgetown, Massachusetts in response to her decision (delivered in an email to parents) to not air the video.

Open Letter

Superintendent Jacobs,

I was extremely disappointed in your email of 9/3/09 detailing why Georgetown students will not be shown the presidential address scheduled for next week. As the father of children in the school system's care, this is not the behavior I expect from school leadership.

First of all, the email's subject matter was the presidential address, yet it was not until the third paragraph that you talked about the president's presentation, and only then you mentioned that it would not be shown. I know of a handful of parents who didn't know of the choice not to show the presentation simply because of the ambiguous email subject and because of where the explanation was buried. It would have been simple to title the email something like, "Georgetown Schools will not show the President's address to School Children ... Here's why." Not being clear makes it appear that you did not want to draw attention to the decision while also being able to say that the decision was made with full public knowledge (to put it in another way -- to cover your backside). While it could be argued you simply did not write a clear email, it certainly looks like it was intentionally misleading.

Second, and more importantly, the actual reasoning is more disturbing:

"After careful consideration we have decided not to air the speech to the student body primarily because there is not adequate time to make the necessary arrangements and to plan thoughtfully. In order to ensure that we provide the best possible instruction for students we like to preview materials that are used in schools however we do not want to our students to miss an opportunity that may be useful to them. Therefore, we will tape the speech and determine as a district to either show it to certain grade levels with parental notice at a later date as part of the curriculum or determine not to use it in our instructional program."

Since when is a presidential address to school children considered something that requires parental notice? Obviously, what you have failed to mention is that the conservative/right/Republicans, inspired and encouraged by high-profile media personalities, has made the president's address a major issue (in many cases claiming that the President is using this time in front of children to promote "socialism," with the underlying message that somehow America's youth will suddenly buy into the President's supposed socialist worldview and subvert the thinking and parenting of their non-socialist, true patriot parents).

Leaving aside anyone's politics, it is amazing to me that the school system reacted in this way. It is clear that a certain number of parents who subscribe to the right in terms of politics have complained, and that rather than face the issue directly, the school leadership has taken the lamentable position of blaming the decision on logistics, technicalities, and the need to plan. At the very least, I would hope you and the other school administrators would be willing to admit why you have chosen this course -- to placate a vocal group of parents that have complained. Instead, you have chosen to pretend it is for reasons that don't seem to hold much water.

Perhaps you assume the majority of parents won't care? Or is it that you care too much what a small group of vocal folks say because they can make your job more difficult, impact funding, or alter the school's political structure? I would like, for example, to know how many complaints you received. You mentioned "numerous." I would hope that numerous -- which is obviously a tiny percentage of town parents -- cannot change school policy whenever they feel like it -- whether the parents are hardcore Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or anything else. If so, this decision sets a dangerous precedent that parents of any political leaning can barrage your office anytime they want to and impact school policy. Yes, we live in a democracy, but democracy is not "ruled by the mob." You already teach controversial subjects in school. Why not have the same courage of conviction in supporting this decision as with those? I assume sex ed, evolution, and teaching tolerance about people with different religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientation is not subject to the whims of "numerous" vocal parents.

It is ironic in a school system that rightfully spends much effort to eradicate bullying from the student body that you have apparently been bullied itself. And worse, you and the other leaders won't even admit it -- making excuses that nobody on the left, right, or middle will believe! If you are going to avoid showing a presidential address -- that supposedly is apolitical -- at least have the courage to explain the real reason.

It is not encouraging to see that our school system, designed to help our children become thoughtful and contributing citizens to a democracy, will cave into pressure simply because of what appears to be a small but organized and vocal protest. What kind of message does that deliver? I can't imagine what may be acceptable now with regards to discussing foreign policy, healthcare reform, end of life issues, financial regulation, etc.

I am not the only parent upset that the school district apparently has no courage to either show the video in the face of critics, or at least admit that it won't do so in order to avoid pressure or to protect its leaders from critics. You know, we, like our kids in your care, aren't stupid. Please don't treat us as such.

Corridors in space? There is no topic that can't find an audience on the Web

While it is obvious that the Internet connects people with diverse and often niche interests, sometimes you have to stumble upon an article and the subsequent discussion of its content to truly see that there is a group of people out there that will be interested in almost any topic imaginable -- or unfathomable. A recent find illustrates this point: An in-depth analysis of the role and specific instances of corridors in science fiction movies.

Corridor Lust

Over at one of the most truly geeky sites imaginable, and aptly named, called Den of the Geek, there was a recent article titled "In praise of the sci-fi corridor." In the article you will find screenshots and discussions of famous and not so famous corridors in movies like Aliens, Moonraker (the cheesiest of many cheesy old James Bond movies), and the slow and cerebral 2001: A Space Odyssey. And lest you think the author simply posted his well-researched and opinionated piece in a vacuum, feel free to peruse the comments of more than 30 readers (that's more than you will find at the end of many articles at popular, mainstream news sites).

There's more than just corridors out there

But don't worry, if you either found the dissection of movie corridors too brief or too esoteric for your taste, check out other articles, such as the post about the 75 best spaceships in movies and television. There is certainly heated debate in the discussion following the main content (and yes, each of the 75 ships are described), which only makes sense when the drop ship in Aliens beat out Star Trek's Enterprise for top ship (but for those of us that are old enough to remember, who can argue with the choice of Space: 1999's Eagle Transporter being No. 2?).

And now, a completely weak segue to talk about some good sci-fi ...

Since this post is about science-fiction, it's a good place to blatantly plug some of my favorite sci-fi books, movies, and TV shows. Obviously, YMMV (your mileage may vary), but perhaps you will find something you missed.

Some interesting books:

• The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Robert Heinlein). One of the best, though you have to enjoy Heinlein's long political and philosophical discussions. To be amazed, just look at the date it was written and realize how current it still seems.
• Starship Troopers (Heinlein). The name may sound goofy, but it is so good that most of the US military service academies have it on their required reading list. The first chapter sets the tone, though there are plenty of slow parts. Just remember, the movie is nothing like the book!
• Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card). OK, Card may be an out-there political commentator now, and the book is sort of a gimmick in terms of the ending, but it is a fun read.
• Snow Crash (Neal Stephenson). An amazingly creative book with a main character named Hiro Protagonist, a world where roads are owned by corporations and all sorts of crazy and imaginative technology and behavior is common.
• The Diamond Age (Stephenson). Who doesn't like the idea of the hidden skull gun, the matter machines, and the retro-Victorian society? It's a bit weird in the end, but original. Stephenson's later books are very interesting though they can be hard to plow through.
• Startide Rising (David Brin). Don't overlook dolphins, as they may be your superior one day. Sometimes it's a slog to get through the long-winded descriptions, but it is a fun and creative read that will probably make you read the others in the Uplift series.
• For more choices, check out this list here.

Some good movies:

• Blade Runner. How many versions of one movie can there be? Go with the director's cut for the one that fans most often think is best (the one without the Harrison Ford narration).
• The Matrix. Only the first one, please. The others just make the first one seem less amazing, particularly its conclusion that seemed so definitive. And yes, this movie did all those effects first (remember, it came out in 1999!).
• Alien. While Aliens is a lot of fun (and almost as fun to quote as Platoon back in 1986-87), the first is just plain scary. And while the action and effect may seem common and low-tech now, the alien-bursting-out-the-stomach bit was disgusting and shocking in its day.
• The reality is that there are a ton of other really campy but fun "cotton candy" movies, such as Armageddon, Independence Day, Stargate, Total Recall (seriously, was it a dream?), and Predator. For a list of more good and bad selections, click here.

TV shows/video:

• Battlestar Galactica (the new series that just ended). Very dark and depressing most of the time, the show had amazing effects, no lasers, and enough questionable behavior by the good and bad guys to create online bar fights between conservative- and liberal-leaning fans.
• Star Blazers. The cartoon may look awful now, or so kids today say, but if you grew up with it, you made sure you came home from school in time to see if the Star Force could save Earth in that year. Just hearing the days left at the end of each episode was enough to bring you back the next day.
• Robot Chicken (the two Star Wars specials). You have to be a super Star Wars geek to get most of the jokes, but if you know your stuff, there is plenty to laugh at. It's also great that the shows make fun of the desecration of the series that creator George Lucas foisted upon fans after the third movie (including the awful prequels).
• There are a bunch of other shows that are cheesy but fun, such as the short-lived Space: Above and Beyond, the mini-series V, and Star Trek: The Next Generation. And no, Firefly, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1 just don't work for me. Here's a longer list with some good and many, many bad shows.