NPR: Retired Generals, Admirals Talk Torture Politics

Retired Generals, Admirals Talk Torture Politics

Normally when a group of 49 retired general and admirals want to speak with you, you're reluctant to say no. But some presidential candidates have been hesitant to meet with just such a gathering of distinguished veterans, and some experts say they have good reason.

Paula Reed Ward, of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, reports that the retired admirals and generals want to meet with all the presidential candidates to discuss why they believe the United States should not, and really cannot, engage in torture. The group was put together by Human Rights First after it noticed that there were various individual retired military officers speaking out on the issue. Forth-nine of them, with 400 years of military experience between them, signed on.

Fifteen of the retired officers met with seven of the eight Democratic candidates in Des Moines last week. Only one Republican has met with them so far, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. The reluctance of other GOP candidates to talk to them has annoyed some of the group. "It is a little frustrating, because we do want to talk to everybody," said Don Guter, a retired rear admiral and former Navy judge advocate general.

The officers will not endorse anyone in either presidential camp, and have promised not to discuss what the candidates tell them.

But Matthew Freedus, an adviser to the National Institute of Military Justice, said he's not surprised that most GOP candidates don't want to meet with the group - he compared it to going into combat without armor.

"There's potentially very little for the candidate to gain by sitting down with a group that has so much experience on this and that [has a viewpoint] that's so different from the position they can afford to take," Mr. Freedus said.

The group's position on torture seems to mirror the publics': since 9/11 between 55 and 65 percent of Americans have been opposed to torturing suspects, even in "ticking bomb" situations, according to Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College in Oregon and an expert on torture.

12:15 PM ET | 12-10-2007 | permalink

Comments

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion. Is this communist russia? Nazi Germany? This is America.

The idea that we would even consider using torture, or ANY coercive methods to obtain information is absolutely repugnant.

Sent by Jody Sol | 12:51 PM ET | 12-10-2007

Every Presidential candiate should WANT to hear what this group has to say! More than that, President Bush and Cheney should listen! In view of the CIA's detruction of tapes in which it is believed waterboarding was used, we continue to be led down a path in which we are dangerously becoming what we say we abhor. Bush and our new Attorney General have danced around saying whether waterboarding is torture DESPITE hearing from miltary experts and even former prisoners of war that it IS torture. So, what are we really doing by the continued claims by the Whitehouse that Iran will develop nuclear weapons for detructive purposes? Which forms of "torture" are the worst? Is that where Mr. Bush is leading this country, to "selective torture" as it best fits his agenda?

If we don't listen and clearly draw a firm line agaist any form of torture, we are veling our own brand of terror against others and trying to legtitimize it just because we are the USA!

Sent by C Neese | 2:46 PM ET | 12-10-2007

I read the comments with interest, but they seem to raise more questions. If Enemy Combatants are captured on the battlefield, and possess crucial information that could save many lives, where should the moral line be drawn. Some arguments presented here suggest that regardless of the potential benefits, interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, should never be used. I would counter that if the situation were reversed, would they be as considerate as well. The next argument to be presented would counter that, in doing so, we lower ourselves to their level, and therefore are no better than they are. So start the cycle we find ourselves in now. I would simply ask those posting, you are presented with a situation where the enemy willing resorts to terrorist acts, such as suicide bombings, to achieve a goal. However, instead of attacking military targets, they choose softer civilian targets, even enlisting Woman and Children to carry their deadly payloads. In my opinion, we didn't start this, but we should finish it.

Sent by Pat K | 9:48 PM ET | 12-10-2007

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.