Republicans propose retroactive bill that allows for CIA use of torture

[Maklershed]

Linkage:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep09/0,4670,DetaineeInterrogations,00.html


Very brief excerpt (not full article):

To many of President Bush's allies, it is time to free intelligence officials from"legislative purgatory"and get the CIA back in the business of effective interrogations of suspected terrorists.

That chance could come this week if the Senate takes up a White House proposal limiting the punishable offenses that CIA interrogators may face when questioning"high-value"terrorist suspects. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is expected to begin debate on the bill as early as Tuesday.

Through omissions and legal definitions, the proposal could authorize harsh techniques that critics contend potentially violate the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of war prisoners. These methods include hypothermia, stress positions and"waterboarding,"a practice of simulated drowning.

[dopa345]

I don't understand why terrorists should have protection under the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention only applies to civilians, members of a regular military or a resistance movement that itself is conducting operations by the rules of war. I don't see the terrorists fitting any of that criteria, especially the last. I have no problem with applying harsh techniques to terrorists that may have credible information that could prevent another 9/11 and save innocent lives.

[Metal Boss]

How about applying torture to entirely innocent people? The declassified report of the gitmo detainees had a vast amount of people being held under unprobable cause, meerly owning a gun, Among other things, was grounds to hold people in some secret prison and torture them.

[niceguyshawne]

I don't understand why terrorists should have protection under the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention only applies to civilians, members of a regular military or a resistance movement that itself is conducting operations by the rules of war. I don't see the terrorists fitting any of that criteria, especially the last. I have no problem with applying harsh techniques to terrorists that may have credible information that could prevent another 9/11 and save innocent lives.


Define a terrorist. Am I a terrorist because I don't blindly support all of our government's actions?

[mykevermin]

I don't understand why terrorists should have protection under the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention only applies to civilians, members of a regular military or a resistance movement that itself is conducting operations by the rules of war. I don't see the terrorists fitting any of that criteria, especially the last. I have no problem with applying harsh techniques to terrorists that may have credible information that could prevent another 9/11 and save innocent lives.

The ample evidence that shows that harsh techniques don't provide reliable results should be enough, regardless of how humanely or inhumanely you want to treat captives.

It's, in all honesty, a "feel good" measure. If the public knows alleged terrorists are being harmed by the government, we feel better that (1) they got their "just desserts" (you see this in public attitudes towards criminals all the time), and (2) something's being done by the government.

Torture produces snitches in the movies and in Metal Gear Solid. Not real life.

[dopa345]

You guys are all making assumptions that with my statement (which is completely true, look up the Geneva convention articles) that I condone Abu Grab and Gitmo and all that. I don't. Those actions are a stain on American honor. However in cases where you have credible intelligence that a prisoner has information on an imminent threat on U.S. security, you bet that I was the government to use whatever methods are necessary to root that out. You're telling me if the CIA had someone in custody that knew about 9/11 ahead of time and if that information could be obtained to prevent it, you wouldn't condone torture in that case? I would be outraged if the exact opposite happened, that the government failed to all it could to prevent such an act from happening because of fear of political backlash. I don't want the government's hands tied. And anyway, I bet there are many cases where it probably has been applied and has worked, we just don't hear about it. I highly doubt that the general public is privy to all aspects on how the government gets its intelligence. If you know otherwise mykevermin, give me link. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, where is the outrage on the atrocities about terrorists kidnapping and decapitating innocent people simply because of their nationality? Obviously they have no disregard for the spirit of the Geneva convention so why go out of your way to extend such protection to them?

BTW, here's a link to the articles of the Geneva convention:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art1

[CocheseUGA]

The ample evidence that shows that harsh techniques don't provide reliable results should be enough, regardless of how humanely or inhumanely you want to treat captives.

It's, in all honesty, a "feel good" measure. If the public knows alleged terrorists are being harmed by the government, we feel better that (1) they got their "just desserts" (you see this in public attitudes towards criminals all the time), and (2) something's being done by the government.

Torture produces snitches in the movies and in Metal Gear Solid. Not real life.

If you take away the threat of torture, you take away fear. I guarantee you, you start getting nails through your knuckles, you start talking. That, or we move on to the genitals.

[schuerm26]

Mike's next argument will be in situations like that you will get false information. People will say whatever is necessary to stop the torture, which is simply not true. They will break and you will get your information.

Mikes argument sounds very similar to the nutjob human rights activist that O'Reilly interviewed.

Once again you show us your true colors that you care more about the rights of terrorists and being politically correct over American citizens safety. Red Hot Chilli Peppers is torture? Give me a break.

From last nights O'Reilly factor (about US torture):

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Opposing point of view joining us from Washington. Katherine Newell-Bierman, a former captain in the Air Force (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Air Force');), present counsel for Human Rights Watch (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Human Rights Watch');). This is crazy, right? Red Hot Chili Peppers (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Red Hot Chili Peppers');) blaring in on Zubaydah? This is nuts.

KATHERINE NEWELL-BIERMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Not if it's long enough and loud enough. The noise sounds like that in a cold room. Things that might sound pretty minor if they're long enough and loud enough and it's cold enough can cause severe pain and suffering. That's the bottom line.

O'REILLY: Severe pain and suffering. So you consider cold room and the Chili Peppers torture?

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me put it this way, Bill, when an interrogator sets out to use techniques like this to talk, you're not talking a few minutes of sounds or not talking a nippy 68 degrees. They're going to use them to the extent the person is being caused pain.

O'REILLY: Discomfort. I don't know about pain but I guess you could make an argument that having to listen to the Chili Peppers blaring in a cold room could cause pain.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Well, Bill, we've seen this in torture chambers around the world. These kinds of techniques are not uncommon.

O'REILLY: So this is a torture chamber according to you and Human Rights Watch. This is torture.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: These techniques if used a certain away can amount to torture.

O'REILLY: OK. Now that to me is just nuts. Torture is taking my fingers off, disfiguring me, taking my eye out — not keeping me in a cold room and uncomfortable with blaring rock music

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me ask you this, though.

O'REILLY: This is the debate. Now you have to understand this is the debate. This guy broke, Zubaydah — according to this article. I wasn't there. According to the article he broke because of this treatment and he gave up Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Khalid Sheikh Muhammad');).

NEWELL-BIERMAN: He told us stuff we already knew, Bill. He told us Khalid Sheikh .

O'REILLY: That's what you say. Not what the CIA says.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: President Bush used him as a poster boy for these techniques and he said that Abu Zubaydah told us Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was actually Muqtar. According to the 9/11 Commission (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('9/11 Commission');) the CIA knew that in 2001.

O'REILLY: According to this article .

NEWELL-BIERMAN: I think President Bush's speechwriters gave him the most poignant example he could use and that's the one he used. That's pretty sad.

O'REILLY: If you can read then you read this article and according to the article the government official unnamed — I will admit we don't like unnamed sources — said that they broke Zubaydah and Zubaydah gave them up all the names that they need to get to prevent further terror attacks. Now I'm going to believe that unless you can prove it differently and you can't.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, tell you what, I'm going to suggest you have another guest on your show. That's Ron Suskind, someone who has had perhaps more access to people in the CIA than anybody else and has a book called "The One Percent Solution." And he goes into exactly what happens with Abu Zubaydah and what kind of information he gave up and the fact that Abu Zubaydah was a crazy man. He was writing diaries in the voices of three different people who were all living in his head.

O'REILLY: You don't believe, then, this New York Times.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bottom line is President Bush described Americans abusing and coercing interrogation from a crazy man who told us stuff we already knew or told us stuff we didn't know and we had to find out that wasn't true. That's the story behind the story.

O'REILLY: You don't believe the story then, because the story makes no mention of what you just said. The story basically says the FBI wanted a soft interrogation, the CIA wanted tough. Tough included the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a cold room.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: The story said that.

O'REILLY: And then at the end of the story, which should have been the lead paragraph but The Times is going to bury that all day long, the government official says, look, we broke the guy. The guy gave us very useful information and protected Americans. You say that's bull. You're just flat out .

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, I'm telling you there's more information, OK? Here is the bottom line. OK? From day one through year five the U.S. military and the FBI have been saying coercive interrogation techniques get you garbage and come at a high cost.

O'REILLY: I don't believe that at a second.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: General Timmons said it at the Pentagon.

O'REILLY: I talked to the interrogators at Guantanamo (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Guantanamo');). You may have seen that. I went down there.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: I did.

O'REILLY: I talked to head interrogator Bob Rum (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Bob Rum');) in Afghanistan. These are the hands-on guys that do it every day.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: You're saying the interrogators told you torture is an effective technique to get good information?

O'REILLY: I'm telling you that coerced interrogation, you ask any police department in the United States, it works on most, not all, but most. It works.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Works for what? They say what they want to say to get you to stop hurting them. I'm not going to argue this point with you. Let's look at the cost of these techniques.

O'REILLY: There's no end to the argument. Let me pose a very simple question to you.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let's look at the costs of these techniques. It makes a big difference.

O'REILLY: All you want to protect your family and my family is name, rank, and jihad number. That's all you want. You don't want any other techniques.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: You don't know that.

O'REILLY: Set me straight.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Come on. Let's get real here. You said you want to talk about reality? Let's talk reality, OK?

O'REILLY: No, straight-on interrogation, Captain.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Professional interrogators say coercion gets you garbage. They don't want to use it. Go look at the Pentagon briefing when General...

O'REILLY: I talked to them face-to-face. I talked to him face-to- face. He told me a totally different story.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Get General Timmons up here. Get the military up here to testify before Congress.

O'REILLY: Very simple, OK, name, rank, jihad number. Anything else that you require from these guys?

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, that's not our position and you know it.

O'REILLY: What's your position? State it.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Our position is that abusive interrogation techniques which cause severe mental and physical pain and suffering are unlawful and really, really stupid.

O'REILLY: Captain, you got nothing and the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't torture. Hate to break it to you. We appreciate you coming on the program.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Thanks, Bill.

[mykevermin]

O'Reilly deliberately misstates just what the action is done to make it seem as if Zubayad was placed in an air conditioned room where RHCP was playing for a few minutes.

You can easily come to the conclusion that that was *NOT* the case.

Bill O'Reilly? Really? That's the best you can come up with? The most hackneyed of FOX News' hackneyed lineup? (and with Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, and Brit Hume - and even without Tony Snow around anymore - that's some stiff competetition!).

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/2e76a343-98be-47aa-a840-30ca6d86e3b0.html

Here. One link; that's all for now, I'm tired and going to bed. Torture works, like I said, in Hollywood and Metal Gear games. In real life, applying it not only provides immense PTSD (a google scholar search for "torture" provides dozens of articles proving that, though I'm sure the well-being of people doesn't matter at all to you, the "civilized" members of society). While you're there, be sure to check out the works that show that responses to torture are often unreliable because the person is coerced not into revealing information, but saying what the interrogators want to hear. In order to stop the torture, that is. So, putting a person under physical and psychological duress, contrary to your beliefs, does not make one clear-minded enough to spill the beans.

And plenty of publicly available intelligence corroborates that what the woman being interviewed by O'Reilly said was true: Zubayad told us information (regarding the location of Khalid Sheikh) that we knew since 2001.

[CocheseUGA]

O'Reilly deliberately misstates just what the action is done to make it seem as if Zubayad was placed in an air conditioned room where RHCP was playing for a few minutes.

You can easily come to the conclusion that that was *NOT* the case.

Bill O'Reilly? Really? That's the best you can come up with? The most hackneyed of FOX News' hackneyed lineup? (and with Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, and Brit Hume - and even without Tony Snow around anymore - that's some stiff competetition!).

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/2e76a343-98be-47aa-a840-30ca6d86e3b0.html

Here. One link; that's all for now, I'm tired and going to bed. Torture works, like I said, in Hollywood and Metal Gear games. In real life, applying it not only provides immense PTSD (a google scholar search for "torture" provides dozens of articles proving that, though I'm sure the well-being of people doesn't matter at all to you, the "civilized" members of society). While you're there, be sure to check out the works that show that responses to torture are often unreliable because the person is coerced not into revealing information, but saying what the interrogators want to hear. In order to stop the torture, that is. So, putting a person under physical and psychological duress, contrary to your beliefs, does not make one clear-minded enough to spill the beans.

And plenty of publicly available intelligence corroborates that what the woman being interviewed by O'Reilly said was true: Zubayad told us information (regarding the location of Khalid Sheikh) that we knew since 2001.

The only thing I'm gonna say is, if you haven't experienced the process, it's hard to comment, or judge what kind of information you get out of it. Sometimes you want to confirm information, sometimes the process confirms that is indeed or not the person you need to have in custody. It doesn't even have to be physical violence that can net you what you need.

Torture is dismissed by those who aren't good at it. And that's about all I have to say in the matter.

[Msut77]

The only thing I'm gonna say is, if you haven't experienced the process, it's hard to comment, or judge what kind of information you get out of it. Sometimes you want to confirm information, sometimes the process confirms that is indeed or not the person you need to have in custody. It doesn't even have to be physical violence that can net you what you need.

Torture is dismissed by those who aren't good at it. And that's about all I have to say in the matter.

Cockcheese, the thing about torture is that it will get you to admit anything.

Which sounds great but put enough spikes under someones nails and they will admit to killing Abe Lincoln.

[Maklershed]

O'REILLY: Discomfort. I don't know about pain but I guess you could make an argument that having to listen to the Chili Peppers blaring in a cold room could cause pain.


I hate O'Reilly with a passion and think he's a lying scumbag that is nothing more than a mouth piece for the Bush administration but that is one fantastic quote.

[mykevermin]

It doesn't even have to be physical violence that can net you what you need.

Let's put aside the loud music and strobe light allegations (they were mentioned in the NYT piece about Zabudayah) for a moment.

In your opinion, does stripping someone and putting them in a freezing cold room constitute physical violence?

[CocheseUGA]

Cochese, the thing about torture is that it will get you to admit anything.


That's when you are applying too much pressure. It's all about knowing someone's limits, and the balance between getting the information you want and finding out they are Santa.

[CocheseUGA]

Let's put aside the loud music and strobe light allegations (they were mentioned in the NYT piece about Zabudayah) for a moment.

In your opinion, does stripping someone and putting them in a freezing cold room constitute physical violence?

Sounds like something I'd do for fun.

[mykevermin]

I think that would constitute and impasse for us, then...

[SpazX]

C'mon people, there are false confessions all the time when there isn't even any physical torture involved, putting even more pressure will make people say anything.

I'm sure it's possible to get accurate information, but you'll also get whatever the they think you want and there's simply no way to tell the difference between what's accurate and what they said so that you'd stop electrifying their balls.

[schuerm26]

C'mon people, there are false confessions all the time when there isn't even any physical torture involved, putting even more pressure will make people say anything.

I'm sure it's possible to get accurate information, but you'll also get whatever the they think you want and there's simply no way to tell the difference between what's accurate and what they said so that you'd stop electrifying their balls.

I disagree with this nonsense about it giving you false information. As said before it's about limits and who the person is. They give you false information the 1st time, you go back and ratchet it up a bit. They WILL give you the correct information over time.

[mykevermin]

I disagree with this nonsense about it giving you false information. As said before it's about limits and who the person is. They give you false information the 1st time, you go back and ratchet it up a bit. They WILL give you the correct information over time.

Another "gut feeling" certainty with no basis in fact, eh?

[CocheseUGA]

C'mon people, there are false confessions all the time when there isn't even any physical torture involved, putting even more pressure will make people say anything.

I'm sure it's possible to get accurate information, but you'll also get whatever the they think you want and there's simply no way to tell the difference between what's accurate and what they said so that you'd stop electrifying their balls.

If you don't know what you are doing, then you aren't going to be able to get the information you want.

[dopa345]

Another "gut feeling" certainty with no basis in fact, eh?

Well, you haven't presented any objective evidence to the contrary either. Torture has to been used throughout all of human history and for better or worse, it is a time-tested way of getting information. You'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise.

The whole point of torture in this case is not to cause suffering out of "revenge" (unlike our enemies). It should be used selectively in cases where you have a terror suspect with critical, time sensitive information. You use a carrot and stick approach. If they give you incorrect information, then you have to show that there are dire consequences to it (to deter lying in the future) but conversely if they give correct information then you treat them humanely or even reward them in some way. The greater the divide between the consequence of withholding/giving false information and the benefit of giving true information, the more likely you are to get the information you need.

[Cheese]

I like the idea of some people arguing, "Torture? What's wrong with torture?" and actually expecting to be taken seriously. That's awesome. That's like someone on the left vocally supporting Bin Laden and expecting everyone to take them seriously, which there are, but no one does. Sad thing is, your guys material is coming from the fvcking vice president.

[Veritas1204]

In your opinion, does stripping someone and putting them in a freezing cold room constitute physical violence?

Not when you like sex, and your wife can't stand the temp. to get above 60 in the house.

No, that's called SATURDAY NIGHT.

[dopa345]

I like the idea of some people arguing, "Torture? What's wrong with torture?" and actually expecting to be taken seriously. That's awesome. That's like someone on the left vocally supporting Bin Laden and expecting everyone to take them seriously, which there are, but no one does. Sad thing is, your guys material is coming from the fvcking vice president.

Actually, my basis is on the lines of Alan Dershowitz, who is a respected law professor at Harvard University (hardly a hotbed of conservative thought) and someone with whom I usually disagree but on this issue I think he is spot on. Here's a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml . This is beyond simply a political issue. This is an issue of survival. It should never be done lightly but it should be an option.

Confronted with the scenario that there is an imminent threat of a major bombing like 9/11 that could kill thousands of lives (possibly including yourself or mykevermin or anyone else on this board) and you have terrorist in hand who has information on when and where that attack will take place. How would you approach it? Are you saying that you would not pursue any means necessary to root that out? Indulge me then and tell how you think we should approach it. I think it's a pretty clear cut case, but rather than to dismiss your view out of hand with a profanity laced response with no substantive content, I welcome hearing your opinion.

[Cheese]

Actually, my basis is on the lines of Alan Dershowitz, who is a respected law professor at Harvard University (hardly a hotbed of conservative thought) and someone with whom I usually disagree but on this issue I think he is spot on. Here's a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml . This is beyond simply a political issue. This is an issue of survival. It should never be done lightly but it should be an option.

Did you read the sixth paragraph?

Torture is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, says Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who also says it’s not reliable. He points out that an Islamic terrorist, convicted in America for terrorist plots he admitted to after torture by authorities in the Philippines, had also admitted to being the Oklahoma City bomber.

Backed up by the general mentioned in that awesome O'Rielly interview on page one. (schuerm, you know that clip makes him look like a simpleton, right? Thanks for posting it.) Torture isn't reliable as an information gathering tool. As a justice tool, sure, you can get guaranteed convictions very easily torturing guys into admitting whatever you want them to, Freedom on the march!

We have a constitution. In it there's a line that guarantees criminal suspects against the use of cruel and inhuman punishment. That's what he's/you're advocating. I get that many of these guys aren't Americans so there's the belief that the constitution doesn't apply to them. But, y'see I think if all men are created equal, don't all men deserve these basic rights? I guess that's up for debate, but I think our freedoms to extend to those in our custody or care. If you believe that all men everywhere have the right to free speech, right to bear arms or the right to religion, then they have the right to not be mistreated in our custody as well.

Dershowitz want's something more akin to Israel's laws (which until recently included allowing innocent HUMAN SHIELDS, sheesh). But they live in a different situation then we do. They're surrounded by millions of people who hate them living right next door. The Israelis truly are standing up for their very survival. The US? Not so much. It's not a issue of survival. America could not be destroyed by Al Queda, Hamas, Hezzbullah, PLO, Islamic Jihad and a magically resurrected Zombie Nazi Party combined.

You want to know how the RHCP can be torture? Fine, imagine this: 30° meat locker with no furniture, a 2 second clip of the Chilli Peppers on repeat at 140+dB, 1,000 watt strobe light, 24 hours a day for a month. Unless you're some eskimo rivothead on ecstasy, you might find that torturous.

Confronted with the scenario that there is an imminent threat of a major bombing like 9/11 that could kill thousands of lives (possibly including yourself or mykevermin or anyone else on this board) and you have terrorist in hand who has information on when and where that attack will take place. How would you approach it? Are you saying that you would not pursue any means necessary to root that out? Indulge me then and tell how you think we should approach it. I think it's a pretty clear cut case, but rather than to dismiss your view out of hand with a profanity laced response with no substantive content, I welcome hearing your opinion.

First, thanks for including me in your little play there, I appreciate it. It really does add to the drama, I'm on the edge of my seat!

Second, I'm not an interrogation expert, but neither are you, so I'm sure there are effective techniques you and I are not aware of. That said, I was watching this Ted Koppel thing about security vs. liberty on Discovery last week and on it was a CIA guy who said that he could see it in certain once in a lifetime situations where if he truly thought that torturing someone was the only solution to get him to give up the antidote, or key to the suitcase bomb or whatever McGuffin you want to use, he would do it, but he would do it fully understanding that at the very least his career was over and that he'd have to pay the TBD penalty. Which I could see and understand, but not fully condone. But that's not what the administration is pushing for, they're pushing for torture as policy. I'm sorry, we don't do that. We're the good guys, there has to be a difference.

[dopa345]

Did you read the sixth paragraph?

We have a constitution. In it there's a line that guarantees criminal suspects against the use of cruel and inhuman punishment. That's what he's/you're advocating. I get that many of these guys aren't Americans so there's the belief that the constitution doesn't apply to them. But, y'see I think if all men are created equal, don't all men deserve these basic rights? I guess that's up for debate, but I think our freedoms to extend to those in our custody or care. If you believe that all men everywhere have the right to free speech, right to bear arms or the right to religion, then they have the right to not be mistreated in our custody as well.

The role of the Constitution is to restrain government to prevent the abuse of its citizens. It does not extend to non-citizens much less terrorists bent on destroying us. We don't give prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts "due process" and "trials"; we most certainly should not extend such rights to terrorists.



Dershowitz want's something more akin to Israel's laws (which until recently included allowing innocent HUMAN SHIELDS, sheesh). But they live in a different situation then we do. They're surrounded by millions of people who hate them living right next door. The Israelis truly are standing up for their very survival. The US? Not so much. It's not a issue of survival. America could not be destroyed by Al Queda, Hamas, Hezzbullah, PLO, Islamic Jihad and a magically resurrected Zombie Nazi Party combined.

I actually meant survival on a more basic level, like not worrying about planes crashing into a building in which I or someone I care about happens to be. However, should we then wait until the situation gets dire enough and then start doing what we need to do? That's akin to finding a cancer in someone and not treating it until the tumor gets bigger and becomes life-threatening. History has proven that great civilzations fall because they underestimated the strength and resolve of their enemies.



First, thanks for including me in your little play there, I appreciate it. It really does add to the drama, I'm on the edge of my seat!



Well, I'm just trying to put in it persepective. It's easy to play backseat ethicist when dealing with these issues abstractly. If you would be willing to risk your life and the lives of others so a terrorist doesn't get tortured, then say so. Personally, while there are things worth dying for, that certainly isn't one of them for me.



Second, I'm not an interrogation expert, but neither are you, so I'm sure there are effective techniques you and I are not aware of. That said, I was watching this Ted Koppel thing about security vs. liberty on Discovery last week and on it was a CIA guy who said that he could see it in certain once in a lifetime situations where if he truly thought that torturing someone was the only solution to get him to give up the antidote, or key to the suitcase bomb or whatever McGuffin you want to use, he would do it, but he would do it fully understanding that at the very least his career was over and that he'd have to pay the TBD penalty. Which I could see and understand, but not fully condone. But that's not what the administration is pushing for, they're pushing for torture as policy. I'm sorry, we don't do that. We're the good guys, there has to be a difference.

I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say here so correct me if I'm wrong since I don't want to miscontrue what you are saying. I think in the first statement, you're implying that perhaps CIA has techniques that work better than torture. I certainly hope you're right. But I highly doubt there would be a debate over this if that were true.

You still haven't answered my fundamental question though. What option would the government have in that situation aside from torture? Or to put it in another perspective, if information came out that the government had a high-level terror suspect pre-9/11 that had information that could have prevented it but chose not to torture him/her for information, then would you be applauding Bush for doing the "right thing"? I personally would be outraged and would be first to call for his impeachment and to have charges of treason brought against him.

[CocheseUGA]

The Constitution said all men were created equal.

...Except blacks.

...And Natives.

...And Japanese.

...And Chinese.

I think you get the point. If the Constitution was perfect, we wouldn't have amended it 27 times. And before you think you know about someone and tell them they are or aren't something, maybe you should ask them before you make assumptions.

[Cheese]

The role of the Constitution is to restrain government to prevent the abuse of its citizens. It does not extend to non-citizens much less terrorists bent on destroying us. We don't give prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts "due process" and "trials"; we most certainly should not extend such rights to terrorists.

While we could debate for hours on the finer points of Constitutional law, my point here is more theoretical, do you want to live in a country that allows, condones and favors state sanctioned torture?

I actually meant survival on a more basic level, like not worrying about planes crashing into a building in which I or someone I care about happens to be. However, should we then wait until the situation gets dire enough and then start doing what we need to do? That's akin to finding a cancer in someone and not treating it until the tumor gets bigger and becomes life-threatening. History has proven that great civilzations fall because they underestimated the strength and resolve of their enemies.

We're talking about people, not cancer cells. People have rights, we as a society have decided that we all agree on some basic rules of conduct. We do not torture people as a matter of policy.

Many of those great powers were dealing with enemies living in their midst. When we start having daily truck bombings and Mexico begins shelling San Diego, we'll talk.

Well, I'm just trying to put in it persepective. It's easy to play backseat ethicist when dealing with these issues abstractly. If you would be willing to risk your life and the lives of others so a terrorist doesn't get tortured, then say so. Personally, while there are things worth dying for, that certainly isn't one of them for me.

I was there on 9/11, pulling escapees off boats on the jersey city shore less then a mile from the WTC, I have all the perspective I need, thanks. I don't think it works. Experts don't think it works. So at the very least there is debate even in the intelligence community, if it were a fact that it worked it might be a different story, but it's not.

I think in the first statement, you're implying that perhaps CIA has techniques that work better than torture. I certainly hope you're right. But I highly doubt there would be a debate over this if that were true.

I'm not so sure of that, I think we're debating this because it's election season. But, we don't know of the various investigative interrogation techniques, drugs, coercion, etc. But one thing we do know from the information available is that torture is unreliable as a tool of extracting information, as evidenced in the above mentioned quotes.

You still haven't answered my fundamental question though. What option would the government have in that situation aside from torture?

My fundamental answer: If an agent knows, for a fact, that the suspect (important word there) has the information he need to stop an imminent disaster, and he believes that torture is the only way to get the information out of him, it's his call, and god help him if he's wrong. Much as the world is today. If he's right and he saves the day, no one will care, but if he's wrong and everyone finds out, then it's time for the cuffs. I don't think we need a law sanctioning the use of torture, not in my name.

There are rules and laws we have chosen to live by. Some make us safer, some not (second amendment, I'm looking at you). But we have all decided that we're going to live with them. If that makes our lives more difficult or law enforcement's job harder, then sorry, but that's the way it is.

[SpazX]

If you don't know what you are doing, then you aren't going to be able to get the information you want.

Here's the problem, how do you know you just got the information you want?

The fact that you're trying to get information shows that you don't know exactly what you're trying to get from them. You can have an idea based on surveillance or something similar, but you can't know what they're saying is right or not anyway (with or without torture) so what makes you think that people are more likely to tell you the truth with torture rather than just tell you what you want them to say?

When do you know that you've gotten the right information and that you need to stop torturing them? You say that you can't get the information you want if you don't know what you're doing, but who does? Without already knowing the information you're looking for how do you know when you've gotten accurate information?

[CocheseUGA]

You could use a very simple technique that I like to call 'forwards and backwards.' What it does is involve a large number of questions that you either already know the answer to, or are trick questions. You get an answer wrong, you pay the price. You answer it correctly, you don't feel more pain (in whichever way you are applying it). Once you get to a point where the suspect is cooperating fully, then you ask what you don't know. Start small at first, things you can easily (and immediately) verify. Then, you move from there.

[dopa345]

While we could debate for hours on the finer points of Constitutional law, my point here is more theoretical, do you want to live in a country that allows, condones and favors state sanctioned torture?


You introduced the constitutional issue so I was just giving my opinion. As far as I can tell, you are willing to extend constitutional rights to terrorists and I'm not. And again you're twisting the scope of the point. Nobody "likes" torture. I think most rational people can agree that torture is distasteful but if you are asking if I want to live in the country that has the stones to do what is needed to protect its citizens including torture as needed in selected cases? Absolutely. Would I condone torture as a routine interrogation method? Absolutely not.



We're talking about people, not cancer cells. People have rights, we as a society have decided that we all agree on some basic rules of conduct. We do not torture people as a matter of policy.


It's obviously a metaphor to illustrate a point. And you're right, society had agreed on basic rules of conduct. But I don't see the terrorists following through with that. Forgive yet another metaphor but how can you expect someone to play the game fairly if the other side is cheating and not only that, you know they are cheating?




Many of those great powers were dealing with enemies living in their midst. When we start having daily truck bombings and Mexico begins shelling San Diego, we'll talk.

The terrorists, as evidenced by 9/11, are very well in our midst. We're not a war with another nation, we're at war with fanatics that transcend nationality and borders. However, at least you are conceding that there are certain circumstances in which you would consider torture as an acceptable option (though you would wait until things got REALLY bad then think about it). That's a start.



I was there on 9/11, pulling escapees off boats on the jersey city shore less then a mile from the WTC


I applaud you (seriously, no sarcasm here). My aunt survived 9/11 and went to New Jersey to stay with her sister during that time so you may have helped her out.


I don't think it works. Experts don't think it works. So at the very least there is debate even in the intelligence community, if it were a fact that it worked it might be a different story, but it's not.


So now are you conceding then if there was definitely proof that torture was an effective means for obtaining information then you would consider it? More progress.



I'm not so sure of that, I think we're debating this because it's election season. But, we don't know of the various investigative interrogation techniques, drugs, coercion, etc. But one thing we do know from the information available is that torture is unreliable as a tool of extracting information, as evidenced in the above mentioned quotes.


There is no full-proof way to extract information. But torture has a chance to work, how can you not take advantage of it when the stakes are so high?



My fundamental answer: If an agent knows, for a fact, that the suspect (important word there) has the information he need to stop an imminent disaster, and he believes that torture is the only way to get the information out of him, it's his call, and god help him if he's wrong. Much as the world is today. If he's right and he saves the day, no one will care, but if he's wrong and everyone finds out, then it's time for the cuffs. I don't think we need a law sanctioning the use of torture, not in my name.

So is that a yes? No? I'm still not sure what your answer would be. I'm just asking what you would do if it were your call. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. Just in case I didn't make myself clear since I don't like waffling on issues, put me down for a "yes".


There are rules and laws we have chosen to live by. Some make us safer, some not (second amendment, I'm looking at you). But we have all decided that we're going to live with them. If that makes our lives more difficult or law enforcement's job harder, then sorry, but that's the way it is.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not meant to be a monolithic, unevolving docutment. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that they could not envision every single circumstance and allowed a means to change it as society changed. Otherwise we would still be considering non-whites as only 3/5 of a person and women wouldn't be able to vote. It was obviously meant to be a dynamic document to adjust to the times.

[Cheese]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not meant to be a monolithic, unevolving docutment. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that they could not envision every single circumstance and allowed a means to change it as society changed. Otherwise we would still be considering non-whites as only 3/5 of a person and women wouldn't be able to vote. It was obviously meant to be a dynamic document to adjust to the times.

I want to come back to the rest of this, but I'm a little drunk and a little tired, I will get to the rest of your reply tomorrow. But there's one point I want to make right now: are we willing, as a people, to amend our basic beliefs for a temporary solution to a temporary problem?

A question I have asked here before and gotten heinous responses to, how much of our basic beliefs are you/we willing to give up to ensure absolute safety for? And do you think that succumbing to caveats really work in the long run?

On a side note: I respect your understanding of the constitution, many folks on the right see it as a document the defines our rights, not as one that defines the power gov't has over us, you read it as it was meant to be read, for that I applaud you. You are sadly, rare.

[BryceDraven]

It's simple. Everything is balanced and once we start tortureing people then everything will just get worse. You think this is a fight with a "villain" .. no in their eyes they are "heros" and once you start tortureing their "heros" they will just get mad and do worse to us as revenge. Don't fall to their level. They are currently doing the cheap shots, if we start cheap shooting... then anything goes. Not just our enemies but anything goes with other countries. You think anyone will trust us with POWs? No... We will just be monsters like we think they are.

[schuerm26]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.h tm

This crap will make you sick, unless your some nutjob liberal like Myke. I can't believe i am actually reading this. The whole article is pasted below.


"ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.

The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")

Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.

The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.
Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)
Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.


The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.

What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)

Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.

Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.
Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word. "

[mykevermin]

I remember the days when all my information came from editorial sources. :rofl:

[schuerm26]

I remember the days when all my information came from editorial sources. :rofl:

Why is it that anything that doesn't fit your agenda you dismiss as nonsense?

[Ikohn4ever]

winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people through torture since 2001

[dopa345]

It's simple. Everything is balanced and once we start tortureing people then everything will just get worse. You think this is a fight with a "villain" .. no in their eyes they are "heros" and once you start tortureing their "heros" they will just get mad and do worse to us as revenge. Don't fall to their level. They are currently doing the cheap shots, if we start cheap shooting... then anything goes. Not just our enemies but anything goes with other countries. You think anyone will trust us with POWs? No... We will just be monsters like we think they are.

They've hijacked commercial airlines and crashed them into civilian buildings. They've captured innocent civilians and decapitated them and posted videos of their atrocities online for the world to see. Please tell me what they could do that would be worse?

[PKRipp3r]

how quaint!!!

[mykevermin]

Why is it that anything that doesn't fit your agenda you dismiss as nonsense?

Because it's an editorial written by a man with clear allegiances to the right-wing agenda, who has published in the New York Post (a/k/a "Fox News Magazine"), Front Page Magazine, National Review Online, and WSJ's Opinion Journal.

All editorial. Nothing factual. You bring up Michael Moore so often in your criticisms ("you don't say this when Michael Moore blah blah blah") that I think the motherfucker lives next door to me, despite the fact that I NEVER:

Use him as a source of information
Cite Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, or any left-wing blog
Bring up anything mentioned in an editorial; if I ever bring up an op-ed writer, it's almost assuredly Paul Krugman, and that's only in the context of something conceptual he brings up. At least that man's a trained economist.

At any rate, back to Miniter. How do I know that name? There was a book: "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," which places the full blame of 9/11 on Clinton's failures to capture bin Laden (time and time again debunked bullshit from the mouth of Mansoor Ijaz be damned!).

There's another book: "Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror." I see. Between the media and Clinton, this guy really likes to lay the blame awfully thick, don't you think? Oh well, negativity sells. Unless your book's name is "How to Make Friends and Influence People." Right? Right.

Oh, look! I found another book by Miniter. I bet it's a doozy of negativity, and one that really finds those responsible for fucking up the war on terror and placing the blame at their feet, holding them accountable to the world. Let's go see what it's called:

"Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror."

:shock:

Oh.

He's one of those guys, huh? Blame Clinton and the media for all terror-related failures, publish in the elite of the elite right-wing media, and laud Bush's work on the war on terror, based upon unverifiable things. Yeah, helluva source you picked up there, kid.

Next time, I'll go get a copy of The Nation and use that as reasoning for why you're totally wrong. When it comes to using hackneyed partisan-filtered information, two can play at that game.

Look, in all seriousness, I'm not discrediting your opinion, but the source is fulla shit. You're starting with your conclusion that torture is great and something a civilized nation ought to do, disregarding any google results that tell you the opposite, and posting the first thing you find on there that supports your claim. You're welcome to have the opinions you have; but goddammit, kid, learn to be more discriminative when it comes to what internet sources you use. Check out webpages, check out authors. Maybe you will one day find some genuine bipartisan stuff supporting torture as a method of interrogation. In the meantime, though, nope. Not at all. I don't cite Al Franken, and you don't cite bullshit either. Deal?

[schuerm26]

Because it's an editorial written by a man with clear allegiances to the right-wing agenda, who has published in the New York Post (a/k/a "Fox News Magazine"), Front Page Magazine, National Review Online, and WSJ's Opinion Journal.



So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense. Or does that only apply to opposing viewpoints?

[PKRipp3r]

So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense.

100% incorrect, as he has never offered his posts as 'facts' only as his own opinions

he's quite clear about that, in my experience

you're either deliberately avoiding the point here, or you actually just don't get it.

here's a way to keep it simple, stick to your own thoughts and ideas rather than copying and pasting someone else's to make your point

problem solved

[mykevermin]

So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense. Or does that only apply to opposing viewpoints?

:sigh: Yes, that's precisely what I meant to say. Nobody should ever have any opinions. Ever.

What's the emoticon for the head beating itself against the wall?

[BryceDraven]

They've hijacked commercial airlines and crashed them into civilian buildings. They've captured innocent civilians and decapitated them and posted videos of their atrocities online for the world to see. Please tell me what they could do that would be worse? That is like saying you helped Hitler because your german or white and then taking it out on everyone that is of those groups. You can't just say everyone is at fault because of what a few people in their group did. That is not how freedom works. A person is a person and is only responible for what themselfs have done and if they are a leader.. they are responible for their followers. Grouping people and saying they are all at fault is wrong. The only people at fault for their actions are their leaders which is why we are mainly after them. It's the chain of command. Even if they are in cells, they still have leaders. We should treat their soliders like we would want them to treat ours in they were in our place.

[Metal Boss]

:sigh: Yes, that's precisely what I meant to say. Nobody should ever have any opinions. Ever.

What's the emoticon for the head beating itself against the wall?


I suggest putting him on ignore, he's vying for attention and has nothing substantial to say.

[dopa345]

That is like saying you helped Hitler because your german or white and then taking it out on everyone that is of those groups. You can't just say everyone is at fault because of what a few people in their group did. That is not how freedom works. A person is a person and is only responible for what themselfs have done and if they are a leader.. they are responible for their followers. Grouping people and saying they are all at fault is wrong. The only people at fault for their actions are their leaders which is why we are mainly after them. It's the chain of command. Even if they are in cells, they still have leaders. We should treat their soliders like we would want them to treat ours in they were in our place.

You completely took my quote out of context. The "they" refers to terrorists/Al Qaeda and not to any ethnic group which you seem to be implying. My statement was in direct response to a comment that argued that perceived mistreatment of terror suspects would somehow cause a cascade of worsening violence by the terrorists. I'm simply arguing that I can't think of how the terrorists could do anything worse then they've what they've already done.

Please be more careful.

[dopa345]

I want to come back to the rest of this, but I'm a little drunk and a little tired, I will get to the rest of your reply tomorrow. But there's one point I want to make right now: are we willing, as a people, to amend our basic beliefs for a temporary solution to a temporary problem?

A question I have asked here before and gotten heinous responses to, how much of our basic beliefs are you/we willing to give up to ensure absolute safety for? And do you think that succumbing to caveats really work in the long run?

On a side note: I respect your understanding of the constitution, many folks on the right see it as a document the defines our rights, not as one that defines the power gov't has over us, you read it as it was meant to be read, for that I applaud you. You are sadly, rare.

I always wince a little when someone considers me part of the "right" since I have major disgreements with the right wing agenda but I appreciate the comment. I also appreciate the fact that our conversation has been civil and intelligent. While we may disagree, it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. As Voltaire once said, "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

[Maklershed]

What's the emoticon for the head beating itself against the wall?

:wall:

[Veritas1204]

I suggest putting him on ignore, he's vying for attention and has nothing substantial to say.

Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.

[Cheese]

You introduced the constitutional issue so I was just giving my opinion. As far as I can tell, you are willing to extend constitutional rights to terrorists and I'm not. And again you're twisting the scope of the point. Nobody "likes" torture. I think most rational people can agree that torture is distasteful but if you are asking if I want to live in the country that has the stones to do what is needed to protect its citizens including torture as needed in selected cases? Absolutely. Would I condone torture as a routine interrogation method? Absolutely not.

Well, maybe not full constitutional rights, but many the core beliefs behind them, such as defined by international law (many of which contain the same protections). Innocent until proven guilty, fair trial cruel and inhuman punishment, etc. I don't think it's a question of who has bigger balls, I think that's rhetoric. Enacting or extending our definitions of torture by means of state policy opens up the door to torture being a routine interrogation method.

But I dunno, say the guy who has the information you want is an American citizen, do you torture him? On something as basic as this i find it hard to justify seeing it abominable to torture a guy from Illinois but perfectly fine to torture a guy from Istanbul. We're supposed to believe that all men are created equal, does that not mean all men are afforded some basic rights?

It's obviously a metaphor to illustrate a point. And you're right, society had agreed on basic rules of conduct. But I don't see the terrorists following through with that. Forgive yet another metaphor but how can you expect someone to play the game fairly if the other side is cheating and not only that, you know they are cheating?

That's what separates us from them. That is what we're supposedly fighting against. Does not lowering ourselves to their level make our job harder? Maybe, but being the good guy often is harder, that's our burden to bear. To tear down one's societal beliefs in an effort to fight an enemy that is bent on tearing down our societal beliefs seems ass backwards.

The terrorists, as evidenced by 9/11, are very well in our midst. We're not a war with another nation, we're at war with fanatics that transcend nationality and borders. However, at least you are conceding that there are certain circumstances in which you would consider torture as an acceptable option (though you would wait until things got REALLY bad then think about it). That's a start.

I will concede that if we were in a situation similar to Israels and the rest of North America converted to Islam with the exception of say, New Jersey, and we were engaged in open warfare across the continent, ok, maybe then we'd have to rethink our policy on many things.

(edit - I wanted to add that while I understand Israel's belief that their rather extreme situation justifies a rather extreme response, i don't necessarily agree or condone it.)

So now are you conceding then if there was definitely proof that torture was an effective means for obtaining information then you would consider it? More progress.

I don't concede that at all. In the admittedly limited research I've done on the topic, I can't seem to find a single investigation or study that says that torture is a reliable interrogation technique, I see a lot of opinion to the contrary, but no evidence.

There is no full-proof way to extract information. But torture has a chance to work, how can you not take advantage of it when the stakes are so high?

If I took a guys 12 year old daughter and made him watch as I raped and tortured her, he might give up some information, how can we not take advantage of that when the stakes are so high?

Where do you draw the line? At what point have we gone to far? We've had this debate before as a culture, and we've come to the conclusion that torture isn't reasonable.

If we torture, what's to stop Iran from torture, or North Korea, or China, or any number of countries we may someday find ourselves in a conflict with? Dick (Nick?) Greggory asked this of the President yesterday and never got a real answer out of him: Say a US spy is captured in Iran or North Korea and they are tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on classified evidence he wasn't allowed access to, we'd be ok with that?

So is that a yes? No? I'm still not sure what your answer would be. I'm just asking what you would do if it were your call. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. Just in case I didn't make myself clear since I don't like waffling on issues, put me down for a "yes".

Then, no.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not meant to be a monolithic, unevolving docutment. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that they could not envision every single circumstance and allowed a means to change it as society changed. Otherwise we would still be considering non-whites as only 3/5 of a person and women wouldn't be able to vote. It was obviously meant to be a dynamic document to adjust to the times.

Then go for a constitutional amendment to redefine the 8th Amendment. Good luck with that.

What scares me is the 'retroactive' part of the administrations bill. They've already done this, now they want to cover their asses before the elections because they know they're fvcked if the opposition gets investigative powers, or worse, when the 11 guys being transferred from the CIA secret prisons to Gitmo get a hold of a lawyer.

[Quackzilla]

Um, I'm no lawyer but weren't ex post facto laws (which this is) deemed unconstitutional?

[defiance_17]

Um, I'm no lawyer but weren't ex post facto laws (which this is) deemed unconstitutional?

I think that's more in terms of not allowing punishment for something that was done at a time when the act wasn't considered a crime.

[CocheseUGA]

Um, I'm no lawyer but weren't ex post facto laws (which this is) deemed unconstitutional?

Better question: if the parties in question don't fall under the purview of the Constitution, does it matter?

[Msut77]

Better question: if the parties in question don't fall under the purview of the Constitution, does it matter?


There are people/institutions in this country that dont fall under the Constitution? You arent talking about W are you?

[CocheseUGA]

There are people in this country that dont fall under the Constitution?

Absolutely. Prisoners, for one, aren't entitled to at least parts of it. Non-US terrorists shouldn't be entitled to any of it.

[elprincipe]

Absolutely. Prisoners, for one, aren't entitled to at least parts of it. Non-US terrorists shouldn't be entitled to any of it.

Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it. Read:

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just for good measure, here is another one quite applicable to this topic:

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[dopa345]

Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it. Read:



Just for good measure, here is another one quite applicable to this topic:

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if we are going by the assumption that the Constitution extends protection to terrorists (which I vehemently disagree) the Fifth Amendment specifically says that it does not apply in cases involving times of war and public danger.

I quote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. "

Not only that, the Constitution recognizes that in specific times of public danger, habeas corpus does not apply.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The reiterate an earlier point, we don't (nor is it expected) to give due process to prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts so why a terrorist should somehow qualify, doesn't make sense to me at all.

[CocheseUGA]

Sorry, but prisoners are treated the way they are under the Constitution's guidance, not outside of it.


Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.

[Metal Boss]

Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.



"So using that reasoning, none of your posts should be taken seriously. You are posting (similar to an editorial, just not published in a magazine), and you have shown clear allegiances to the left wing agenda. Therefore according to your reasoning, all your posts are nonsense."


This finger jab is what I was referring to, my comment wasn't even directed towards you... There is a line between trolling and debating, albeit a thin one for imbeciles of your caliber.

[dopa345]

Well, maybe not full constitutional rights, but many the core beliefs behind them, such as defined by international law (many of which contain the same protections). Innocent until proven guilty, fair trial cruel and inhuman punishment, etc. I don't think it's a question of who has bigger balls, I think that's rhetoric. Enacting or extending our definitions of torture by means of state policy opens up the door to torture being a routine interrogation method.

The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacious one. You can't refute a point by saying something will inevitably happen without objective evidence. Other I could just counter by saying that by ruling out torture, we will encourage even more attacks since there will be a perception that there is relatively little to fear by being captured by Americans (which while I actually believe to be true, it is not an effective argument for this debate).



But I dunno, say the guy who has the information you want is an American citizen, do you torture him? On something as basic as this i find it hard to justify seeing it abominable to torture a guy from Illinois but perfectly fine to torture a guy from Istanbul. We're supposed to believe that all men are created equal, does that not mean all men are afforded some basic rights?



If he is an American citizen, he is entitled to the full protection of the Bill of Rights in that case and in my mind would not be subjected to torture. However, that guy from Istanbul, if he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and had time sensitive information that could save American lives, then yes I would condone torture if it came to that to get that information.

Everyone is entitled to basic rights but if you violate the law, they you forfeit those rights. We deprive liberty to criminals because they commit a crime. A terrorist, to put it mildly, has commited a crime and thus they forfeit those rights.



That's what separates us from them. That is what we're supposedly fighting against. Does not lowering ourselves to their level make our job harder? Maybe, but being the good guy often is harder, that's our burden to bear. To tear down one's societal beliefs in an effort to fight an enemy that is bent on tearing down our societal beliefs seems ass backwards.



We have a long way to go before we've "lowered" ourselves to their level. If we start sending suicide bombers to civilian targets or videotaping our soldiers decapitating innocent people we picked up at random then yes, we've "lowered" ourselves to their level.
If we ever sanction torture solely to exact revenge, then I would also agree we are lowering ourselves to their level. However, I still think that is a far cry from torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario in order to save lives which is perfectly defensible.



I don't concede that at all. In the admittedly limited research I've done on the topic, I can't seem to find a single investigation or study that says that torture is a reliable interrogation technique, I see a lot of opinion to the contrary, but no evidence.



As you say, the debate over the effectiveness of torture is almost completely speculative and any objective evidence is probably top secret. We don't hear any of the success stories of attack averted because of the use of torture (but I will concede it would be just an unlikely we would not hear of the "failures" as well).



If I took a guys 12 year old daughter and made him watch as I raped and tortured her, he might give up some information, how can we not take advantage of that when the stakes are so high?



That would be indefensible since you're involving a completely innocent party. However I have no problem making the suspect think we would/could do something like that.



Where do you draw the line? At what point have we gone to far? We've had this debate before as a culture, and we've come to the conclusion that torture isn't reasonable.



I've already put it at where I would draw the line. A terror suspect with time sensitive knowledge of an imminent attack.



If we torture, what's to stop Iran from torture, or North Korea, or China, or any number of countries we may someday find ourselves in a conflict with? Dick (Nick?) Greggory asked this of the President yesterday and never got a real answer out of him: Say a US spy is captured in Iran or North Korea and they are tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced to death on classified evidence he wasn't allowed access to, we'd be ok with that?



Nothing is stopping those countries from torturing anybody, they have their own policies on that. Anyway, the big difference is that if we were ever in a conflict with them, the Geneva Convention would apply so in theory, POW's on either side would be protected.




Then, no.



All I can say is that I just don't understand how you could put lives of your fellow citizens over the well-being of a terrorist. But you are entitled to your opinion.




Then go for a constitutional amendment to redefine the 8th Amendment. Good luck with that.



I don't think that would be necessary since I don't think terrorists are entitled to Constitutional rights.



What scares me is the 'retroactive' part of the administrations bill. They've already done this, now they want to cover their asses before the elections because they know they're fvcked if the opposition gets investigative powers, or worse, when the 11 guys being transferred from the CIA secret prisons to Gitmo get a hold of a lawyer.

I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that happened.

[CocheseUGA]

I was flipping through the channels the other night and saw a picture of 170 Taliban or al-Qaeda people at a funeral...with crosshairs. We didn't fire apparently, and the arguement was because 'he have a higher moral standard.'

[Quackzilla]

I was flipping through the channels the other night and saw a picture of 170 Taliban or al-Qaeda people at a funeral...with crosshairs. We didn't fire apparently, and the arguement was because 'he have a higher moral standard.'
But then we blew up a wedding in Iraq...

[Veritas1204]

But then we blew up a wedding in Iraq...

And then later in the movie, a Jewish doctor rips the kidneys out of a healthy muslim and sells them on the black market.

Or can you provide a link with that slanderous shit you just wrote to prove that it wasn't a hollywood fantasy?

[Maklershed]

Here are two:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/17/wafg17.xml

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=64801

And how is it slanderous to say that we have higher moral standards than terrorists?

[CocheseUGA]

Here are two:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/17/wafg17.xml

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=64801

And how is it slanderous to say that we have higher moral standards than terrorists?

I wouldn't say it's slanderous, but I hate that it's a crutch we use to justify not going after someone when we have the chance. They blow us up when we aren't ready, I think it's only fair to blow them up at a funeral. I mean, they are already at the cemetary...

[Msut77]

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?

[Veritas1204]

ummm. no, the slander comment was for posting accusations that American soldiers were murdering Iraqi civilians at weddings, without providing links.

And since you have at least provided a link, I retract my statment, (although I strongly disagree with the insinuation that US soldiers indiscrimanately murder Iraqi civilians).

and Msut, do you ever get the feeling that continually posting one line flames at people you don't agree with politically makes you look like a fucking two year old?

[Quackzilla]

ummm. no, the slander comment was for posting accusations that American soldiers were murdering Iraqi civilians at weddings, without providing links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2079565.stm

Actually, it was Afghani civilians, my bad.

But they were still at a wedding and the bombs were dropped by Americans and they had no ties to terrorists whatsoever.

[elprincipe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if we are going by the assumption that the Constitution extends protection to terrorists (which I vehemently disagree) the Fifth Amendment specifically says that it does not apply in cases involving times of war and public danger.

I quote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. "

Not only that, the Constitution recognizes that in specific times of public danger, habeas corpus does not apply.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The reiterate an earlier point, we don't (nor is it expected) to give due process to prisoners of war in legitimate conflicts so why a terrorist should somehow qualify, doesn't make sense to me at all.

Oh, I don't disagree with you about those things. I merely was responding to the false claim that prisoners are treated outside the Constitution's jurisdiction.

[elprincipe]

Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.

Nope, still under the Constitution. Felons may be deprived rights (such as the right to vote), but these rights are taken away through due process of law as required by the Constitution. No American citizen can have constitutional rights taken away unless they are taken as described in the Constitution.

[Msut77]

Msut, do you ever get the feeling that continually posting one line flames at people you don't agree with politically makes you look like a fucking two year old?

I dont make fun of you because we differ politically, I make fun of you because of your feeblemindedness.

[dopa345]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2079565.stm

Actually, it was Afghani civilians, my bad.

But they were still at a wedding and the bombs were dropped by Americans and they had no ties to terrorists whatsoever.

That doesn't really support your point as I understand it. It clearly was a terrible mistake and not a deliberating targeting of the wedding in order to eliminate a specific target.

[CocheseUGA]

No American citizen can have constitutional rights taken away unless they are taken as described in the Constitution.

In some instances, at best, you're talking about rights that states act upon, especially with the 2nd Amendment. But even then, that's the ATF handling that issue and not the states. There is nothing in the Constitution that states felons cannot own or sell firearms, but they are denied almost 100% of the time. See United States v. Bean.

[Veritas1204]

I dont make fun of you because we differ politically, I make fun of you because of your feeblemindedness.

Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

Allow me to correct that:

Msut, you couldn't matter to me less if your life depended on it.

every one line childish flame that spews forth from your ignorant ass does nothing but drive down the quality of debate, and we are all stupider for them.

I hope that clears any misconceptions you had about me actually caring what a fucking internet troll like you thinks about me.

[Maklershed]

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?

Well I cant come to any conclusions about Cochese but I imagine that Veritas is alright. Not only does he have a Boondock Saints avatar but his name is the name of a tattoo that one of the brothers have on their hands.

[CocheseUGA]

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Very and Cockcheese are nothing but a pair of moronic hysterical c*nts or is it just me?

Who the fuck are you, and what learning deficiency do you claim that you can't spell my name right?

Or is that one of those 5th grade insults?

You know zero about me, or what I believe in. So until you do, feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself.

[mykevermin]

Sorry to disappoint you metal, but myke has something called intellectual honesty. Unlike you, he allows alternate views to be shared without running away screaming at the first sight of disagreement.

I may disagree with his views, but at least he can stand up to alternate opinions without calling someone a "freeper" and putting them on ignore.

IOW, putting someone on ignore because you cannot deal with their opposing views = pussy.




hope that clears things up a little.

Despite Veritas suggesting the opposite here (and for good reason), I do advocate putting Msut on your list. I know I have.

I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.

Msut, on the other hand, is not a part of the conversation I consider relevant or important. Your quotes of his posts indicate to me that he has not changed his single-sentence mockery of other people for thinking differently than him, and I feel that I made the right choice in putting him on the ignore list. It's not like I'm gonna accidentally miss some fleeting moment of brilliance. Right? I suggest you do the same.

[Metal Boss]

Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

Allow me to correct that:

Msut, you couldn't matter to me less if your life depended on it.

every one line childish flame that spews forth from your ignorant ass does nothing but drive down the quality of debate, and we are all stupider for them.

I hope that clears any misconceptions you had about me actually caring what a fucking internet troll like you thinks about me.
hey, moron! Yeah you with the face!

Ahh ok, now that I've got your easily swayed attention on me, back to my original point, theres a thin line between trolling and debating here, you've chosen to take on trolling instead. All I have seen from you is spin and shit-slinging, you even spun my comments around to make them seem as though they were directed towards you... Yet you've decided not to make any kind of retraction or explain why you had told me I was lacking "intellectual honesty", I think you're lacking basic reading & comprehension.

"hope that clears things up a little." I couldn't think of a more polar opposite expression when it comes to anything you bring to the table.

[Msut77]

Wow. Somewhere, somehow, I must have given you the impression that I give a fuck what you think about me.

As further proof of your brain damage you think that matters.

[Msut77]

Who the fuck are you, and what learning deficiency do you claim that you can't spell my name right?

Or is that one of those 5th grade insults?

You know zero about me, or what I believe in. So until you do, feel free to keep your thoughts to yourself.


I like to believe the insult cockcheese is a little advanced for fifth graders but whatever.

I have read enough from you to get a fair idea of what you believe in and who you are, I think the word scum suffices.

[Msut77]

Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.

I missed this part btw, you are reffering to a concept know as civil death.

Convicts/Felons dont always lose their rights (and it is limited to voting rights), also once lost many states allow them to be restored.

[Msut77]

Actually, that was an error on my part. I meant felons.

I missed this part btw, you are reffering to a concept known as civil death.

Convicts/Felons dont always lose their rights (and it is limited to voting rights), also once lost many states allow them to be restored.

EDIT: Sorry for the triple posting.

[elprincipe]

In some instances, at best, you're talking about rights that states act upon, especially with the 2nd Amendment. But even then, that's the ATF handling that issue and not the states. There is nothing in the Constitution that states felons cannot own or sell firearms, but they are denied almost 100% of the time. See United States v. Bean.

You're completely misunderstanding me. I never claimed that rights such as that to vote or the right to bear arms can't be taken away. Obviously, they are all the time. This is legal BECAUSE of the Constitution, not in spite of it. Read the part about rights and "due process of law" again.

[elprincipe]

Despite Veritas suggesting the opposite here (and for good reason), I do advocate putting Msut on your list. I know I have.

I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.

Msut, on the other hand, is not a part of the conversation I consider relevant or important. Your quotes of his posts indicate to me that he has not changed his single-sentence mockery of other people for thinking differently than him, and I feel that I made the right choice in putting him on the ignore list. It's not like I'm gonna accidentally miss some fleeting moment of brilliance. Right? I suggest you do the same.

This is why I respect you.

[Metal Boss]

I think, and truly believe, that schuerm tries to have useful discourse, and really wants to be part of the conversation. He often comes across as a troll, but underlying it are some thoughtful points and ideas (sometimes). He's a reflection of what modern political discourse is on 24-hour news channels, books, and radio: a condensed version of ideas put into a highly combative discourse remniscent of a pro wrestling television show, and the depth of ideas is about that of a pro wrestling script. If he sticks around, I hope, he'll eventually learn discourse better than he currently does. The day he starts telling me how I'm overstepping boundaries of appropriateness in my posts (by calling him an asshole, for example), then I know I'll have helped in something worthwhile, whether or not I change his views in the slightest degree.


I didn't suggest ignoring him because of his political views, mind you, I suggested it because it was clear he wasn't making any more points on the subject and had just taken to run of the mill partisan slags.

[CocheseUGA]

I like to believe the insult cockcheese is a little advanced for fifth graders but whatever.

I have read enough from you to get a fair idea of what you believe in and who you are, I think the word scum suffices.

Why don't you enlighten us?

[mykevermin]

This is why I respect you.

Don't hold your breath; I'll do something to screw it up soon enough. ;)

[Msut77]

Why don't you enlighten us?

On the myriad of ways of why you are scum or how cockcheese is at least a jr high insult?

Anyway do you know just how old the concept of civil death is?

[CocheseUGA]

On the myriad of ways of why you are scum or how cockcheese is at least a jr high insult?

Anyway do you know just how old the concept of civil death is?

The first one. And don't forget to show your work!

And yes I do.

[Msut77]

The first one.

Your pro torture views and your insistence on sinking down to the Talibans level.

That is more than enough.

I wonder if you are going to say torture is a political view?

[CocheseUGA]

Your pro torture views and your insistence on sinking down to the Talibans level.

That is more than enough.

I wonder if you are going to say torture is a political view?

No. It's a job description. It's always been reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, and never done lightly. And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity.

I'm not exactly pro-torture, I'm pro-information. If I can't get the information I need through normal means, and if it means people's lives are at stake, yeah, I'm gonna have to vote for some 'extreme measures.' If you want to call all of the things done torture, then that's your prerogative.

Sinking down to the Taliban's level would be denying women education, making them wear burkhas and veils and killing them for being anything other than a Muslim.

All I'm advocating is killing/capturing them before they kill us. I could risk a handful of SpecFor to go capture them, or I could use the Predator drone (that already had a Hellfire at it's disposal) to kill them.

Or, you know, we could do it your way and try to arrest them after they blow up an Army camp...Oh wait, they killed themselves in the process.

I'd love for someone to think of me as scum, but that's a pretty weak arguement you have there. Try some more.

[Msut77]

And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity.

And yet you get mad when you get called scum.

There are worse and still accurate words to use, but this is a family website.

You a fan of Rush btw?

[CocheseUGA]

You keep asking nonsensical questions, but still haven't provided any factual evidence to corroborate your opinion. If you choose to have baseless opinions, fine. You'd fit in with a couple other posters around here, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

WTF does the band have to do with this conversation? Reaching for things to talk about?

[mykevermin]

And if you're even thinking of referring to Abu Garab, go to Rush Week at a major fraternity

I had decided to drop out of this thread, as I'm trying to take load o' notes, and this discussion got my head hot; it wasn't helping my productivity, you see.

I have to point out, however, that as much as I resent a lot of the opinions of people in here, and the lengths to which people will accept uncivilized behaviors for the purpose of protecting civilization, I abhor the above comparison. Abu Ghraib was not play time, it wasn't exploitation or abuse in the "we're just having a good time" kinda rush way. There was no finite time frame in which the inmates there were "rushed," and then later let into the frat.

It's a dreadful, dreadful analogy. If you want to compare it to anything related to college, perhaps Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment may be more appropriate.

[Msut77]

You keep asking nonsensical questions

Not really, what you said was pretty much an exact quote of Rush Limbaugh.

BTW the point (which zoomed right over your furrowing brow) is that your support of torture is Prima facie evidence of your all around douchebaggery and scumbaggedness.

[CocheseUGA]

I disagree. Naked pyramid time isn't torture. 'Severe pain' doesn't enter anywhere in my mind when Abu Garab is mentioned, at least the naked part of it. If actual torture was committed, I must have missed it, or it was severly glossed over. I do remember something about some probes, but can't remember if that was substantiated.

What comes to mind when I hear that is 'humiliation.' Yeah, it might have been pretty fucked up and cruel to do, but naked pyramids =/= torture. Now if there is substantiated cases of torture there, I'd want to know:
a) who administered it
b) who authorized it
c) who it was done to
d) what information was expected

I get the feeling that it was done haphazardly and by untrained members of the Army who's idea of Military Intelligence is adding together the tip after a round of beers. (I'm speaking of a specific group, mind you)

You will have to forgive me if I didn't hear all the information that came out right at that time, as I wasn't exactly in a location that received the Nightly News.

[Msut77]

I disagree. Naked pyramid time isn't torture. 'Severe pain' doesn't enter anywhere in my mind when Abu Garab is mentioned

That is because you are ignorant if not deliberately obtuse.

There was much much worse than that going on.

[Cheese]

Now if there is substantiated cases of torture there, I'd want to know:
a) who administered it
b) who authorized it
c) who it was done to
d) what information was expected

Well there was the guy with the electrical cables attached to his nuts, sad thing about him was he was a carjacker, not a terrorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satar_Jabar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg

[CocheseUGA]

Well there was the guy with the electrical cables attached to his nuts, sad thing about him was he was a carjacker, not a terrorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satar_Jabar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg

See, you only hear/know about so much when it gets passed down the CoC. Ahh, I see...MPs were involved. So in short, nobody knew what the hell they were doing, or why they were doing it. I don't blame anyone for getting upset at that. I would still like to know who authorized it if anyone has any sources. I'll go out on a limb and say it wasn't anyone who knew what they were doing.

And cheese, they obviously thought he was a dark wizard capable of inflicting massive damage. The perscribed form of punishment is joules to jewels, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Cheese]

The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacious one. You can't refute a point by saying something will inevitably happen without objective evidence. Other I could just counter by saying that by ruling out torture, we will encourage even more attacks since there will be a perception that there is relatively little to fear by being captured by Americans (which while I actually believe to be true, it is not an effective argument for this debate).

I'm pretty sure making state sanctioned torture as a policy is the bottom of the slippery slope.

If he is an American citizen, he is entitled to the full protection of the Bill of Rights in that case and in my mind would not be subjected to torture. However, that guy from Istanbul, if he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and had time sensitive information that could save American lives, then yes I would condone torture if it came to that to get that information.

How do you know he has the information? How do you know torture will make him give it up? As several people have repeatedly pointed out on this thread torture has never been a reliable for of information gathering, you get guys who admit to anything you say, anything to make you stop, but that doesn't necessarily make their statements true, if anything it makes them more unreliable.

Everyone is entitled to basic rights but if you violate the law, they you forfeit those rights. We deprive liberty to criminals because they commit a crime. A terrorist, to put it mildly, has commited a crime and thus they forfeit those rights.

Even criminals have rights, humans, just by the sheer fact that they are alive, have rights. Even a terrorist is innocent until proven guilty, even Osama Bin Laden gets a day in court.

We have a long way to go before we've "lowered" ourselves to their level. If we start sending suicide bombers to civilian targets or videotaping our soldiers decapitating innocent people we picked up at random then yes, we've "lowered" ourselves to their level.
If we ever sanction torture solely to exact revenge, then I would also agree we are lowering ourselves to their level. However, I still think that is a far cry from torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario in order to save lives which is perfectly defensible.

Picking someone up at random and torturing someone who may or may not have the information you want is the same thing, you're still torturing someone. It's worse if you're a state, then you have to own up to it, pay the penalty for it in the international community, and for sure be sued by the guy if you get nothing out of him. The ends don't justify the means.

Or, Abu Gharib, same torture rooms, under new management.

As you say, the debate over the effectiveness of torture is almost completely speculative and any objective evidence is probably top secret. We don't hear any of the success stories of attack averted because of the use of torture (but I will concede it would be just an unlikely we would not hear of the "failures" as well).

Are you kidding me? This administration would be walking up and down Broadway with a bullhorn telling the world they stopped a terror attack, no matter how they got the information. More so now if they did it using torture, they'd come right out and say it.

The more I look into this the more overwhelming it becomes that there doesn't seem to be any rational defense of torture. It's complete unreliability is astounding.

That would be indefensible since you're involving a completely innocent party. However I have no problem making the suspect think we would/could do something like that. I've already put it at where I would draw the line. A terror suspect with time sensitive knowledge of an imminent attack.

And what if he still doesn't give it up? What do you do then? How many more suspects are you willing to burn the eyes out of for information? What, you'll burn a dudes eyes out but you won't fuck his daughter? Maybe she knows something, I mean she's affiliated to a terror suspect. She could have overheard him talking about the plan, let's burn her eyes out too while we're at it, it'll save American lives.

Nothing is stopping those countries from torturing anybody, they have their own policies on that.

So you WOULD be ok with it, just making sure. You'd let that slide? ok.

Anyway, the big difference is that if we were ever in a conflict with them, the Geneva Convention would apply so in theory, POW's on either side would be protected.

But that's the law they want to change, to redefine the word 'torture' as it allies to the Geneva Conventions. So if we can do it, why can't they?

All I can say is that I just don't understand how you could put lives of your fellow citizens over the well-being of a terrorist. But you are entitled to your opinion.

It's called being a human being, not just an American, understanding that one thing the neocons were right about is the middle east is going to be the focal point for the next century. And we started it out by invading two of their countries, killing over 100,000 of their people and now, torturing them. We will reap what we have sown for another 93 years.

I don't think that would be necessary since I don't think terrorists are entitled to Constitutional rights.

If they're americans they do.

I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if that happened.

Sad thing is, neither would I, but I think for some substantially different reasons.

[Maklershed]

See, you only hear/know about so much when it gets passed down the CoC. Ahh, I see...MPs were involved. So in short, nobody knew what the hell they were doing, or why they were doing it. I don't blame anyone for getting upset at that. I would still like to know who authorized it if anyone has any sources. I'll go out on a limb and say it wasn't anyone who knew what they were doing.

And cheese, they obviously thought he was a dark wizard capable of inflicting massive damage. The perscribed form of punishment is joules to jewels, so I don't see anything wrong with that.
Did someone say "inflicting massive damage"?

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/8757/upsidedowncrabsv3.th.jpg (http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?image=upsidedowncrabsv3.jpg)

[Cheese]

And cheese, they obviously thought he was a dark wizard capable of inflicting massive damage. The perscribed form of punishment is joules to jewels, so I don't see anything wrong with that.


C'mon, you can't use elemental attacks on a magic user! Brute force!

[mykevermin]

Mr. Arar arrived in Syria on Oct. 9, 2002, and was imprisoned there until Oct. 5, 2003. It took Canadian officials, however, until Oct. 21 to locate him in Syria. The commission concludes that Syrian officials at first denied knowing Mr. Arar’s whereabouts to hide the fact that he was being tortured. It says that, among other things, he was beaten with a shredded electrical cable until he was disoriented.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=19cef65f49917a76&hp&ex=1158724800&partner=homepage

We're moving beyond "naked pyramids" at this point, just like we were moving beyond naked pyramids at Abu Ghraib.

What's worse, our government intentionally sent a man to Syria to be detained. This would turn out to be one of the "secret prisons" that Bush finally admitted to the other week, as he tried to pull a political stunt to excuse the abuses and unnecessary detentions at Guantanamo Bay by discussing moving al qaeda members from the secret institutions to Guantanamo.

So, Syria, huh? An interesting choice. I wonder how our government perceives them.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Constitution prohibits torture, and the Penal Code provides punishment for abusers; however, there was credible evidence that security forces continued to use torture.

During the year, the SHRC reported numerous cases of torture in custody, including the case of two Kurdish leaders, Marwan Uthman and Hasan Saleh, who were arrested in December 2002 for organizing a demonstration (see Section 2.b.). Former prisoners and detainees, as well as the SHRC, reported that torture methods included administering electrical shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beating, sometimes while the victim is suspended from the ceiling; hyperextending the spine; bending the detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts; and using a chair that bends backwards to asphyxiate the victim or fracture the victim's spine. Torture was most likely to occur while detainees were being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, particularly while the authorities were attempting to extract a confession or information.

A foreign citizen (with dual Syrian nationality) detained in February reported that he was tortured while in prison. Diplomatic representatives reported seeing bruises on the prisoner's body after his release from prison. During the year, at least nine Kurds were jailed and reportedly tortured in prison.

Past victims of torture have identified the officials who tortured them, up to the level of brigadier general. If allegations of excessive force or physical abuse were to be made in court, the plaintiff was required to initiate his own civil suit against the alleged abuser. However, no action was taken against the accused. There were no examples of such allegations during the year. Courts did not order medical examinations for defendants who claimed that they were tortured (see Section 1.e.).

At year's end, Raed Hijazi remained in custody while awaiting an appeals decision for the death sentence handed down by Jordanian authorities in 2002.

Prison conditions generally were poor and did not meet international standards for health and sanitation. At some prisons, security officials demanded bribes from family members. Overcrowding and the denial of food remained problems at several prisons. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), prisoners and detainees were held without adequate medical care, and some prisoners with significant health problems reportedly were denied medical treatment. Some former detainees reported that the Government prohibited reading materials, even the Koran, for political prisoners.

There were separate facilities for men, women, and children. Pretrial detainees, particularly those held for political or security reasons, were usually held separately from convicted prisoners. Facilities for political or national security prisoners generally were worse than those for common criminals.

There were reports of death in prison due to torture (see Section 1.a.).

Oh my. That's certainly not within Article III, no matter how vague you think "human dignity" is. From where did this report come?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27938.htm

Oh. Hmm. The State Department, huh? Well, maybe this was just a bad year for Syria.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Despite the existence of constitutional provisions and several Penal Code penalties for abusers, there was credible evidence that security forces continued to use torture, although to a lesser extent than in previous years. Former prisoners, detainees, and the London-based Syrian Human Rights Organization reported that torture methods included administering electrical shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beating, sometimes while the victim is suspended from the ceiling; hyperextending the spine; bending the detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts; and using a chair that bends backwards to asphyxiate the victim or fracture the victim's spine. In 2001 AI published a report claiming that authorities at Tadmur Prison regularly tortured prisoners, or forced prisoners to torture each other. Although it occurs in prisons, torture was most likely to occur while detainees were being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, especially while the authorities were attempting to extract a confession or information.

The Government has denied that it uses torture and claims that it would prosecute anyone believed guilty of using excessive force or physical abuse. Past victims of torture have identified the officials who tortured them, up to the level of brigadier general. If allegations of excessive force or physical abuse are to be made in court, the plaintiff is required to initiate his own civil suit against the alleged abuser. Courts did not order medical examinations for defendants who claimed that they were tortured (see Section 1.e.). There were no substantiated allegations of torture during the year.

In 2000 the Government apprehended Raed Hijazi, accused of a terrorist plot targeting American and Israeli tourists in Jordan during the millennium celebrations, and sent him to Jordan to stand trial. According to media accounts of the trial, doctors for both the defense and the prosecution testified that Hijazi's body showed signs of having been beaten, but witnesses, including Hijazi, made contradictory and inconclusive claims regarding whether the alleged abuse occurred while he was in Jordanian or Syrian custody. The Jordanian court has rejected the allegations that Hijazi's confession was coerced. In February the Jordanian authorities sentenced Hijazi to death. He has appealed the decision but remained in custody at year's end pending a decision.

Prison conditions generally were poor and did not meet international standards for health and sanitation. However, there were separate facilities for men, women, and children. Pre-trial detainees, particularly those held for political or security reasons, were usually held separately from convicted prisoners. Facilities for political or national security prisoners generally were worse than those for common criminals.

At some prisons, authorities allowed visitation, but in other prisons, security officials demanded bribes from family members who wished to visit incarcerated relatives. Overcrowding and the denial of food occurred at several prisons. According to Human Rights Watch, prisoners and detainees were held without adequate medical care, and some prisoners with significant health problems reportedly were denied medical treatment. Some former detainees have reported that the Government prohibited reading materials, even the Koran, for political prisoners.

In 2001 the London-based Syrian Human Rights Commission reported that three detainees died in prison and that their remains bore evidence of torture and extreme medical neglect.

The Government did not permit independent monitoring of prison or detention center conditions, although diplomatic or consular officials were granted access in high profile cases.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18289.htm

Oh? You guys again? I'm starting to think that Syria has a patterned history of torture; one that our State Department has known about. And, knowing that, they sent detainees to be handled by the Syrians.

There seem to be two common threads amongst those who support the current means of acquiring information from detainees (and they're somewhat contradictory, IMO): (1) The United States does not torture, and (2) The United States needs to do what it can to protect itself during this time of war.

Well, #1 is more or less shot to hell; let's not pretend any more. If our government is knowingly sending detainees to be handled by nations with such torture violations (there are plenty of other examples of human rights violations in the links, but the relevant torture stuff is quoted here), that sure blows argument #1 to hell. Focus on #2, b/c that's all you've got left.

[PKRipp3r]

Bush is allowed to torture children.
---------------------------------------------

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://rwor.org/a/026/torture-victims-confront-advocate.htm

Hear it here (http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3)

http://rwor.org/a/020/images/johnyoo-small.jpg

[elprincipe]

Don't hold your breath; I'll do something to screw it up soon enough. ;)

Nah. We disagree plenty, but I respect conviction, honesty and intelligence. Anyway, there are so few on this board with any of those three to argue with already...

[E-Z-B]

http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-jackass-in-chief.jpg

[mykevermin]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/02/opinion/edkeillor.php

Garrison Keillor in with an insightful op-ed. Regretfully, a lot of the kinds of claims he and others are making border on slippery slope arguments. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that other countries follow the lead of the United States when it comes to military precedent. The Cold War was a perpetual game of up-arming and one-upsmanship; whatever we did that bestest the Soviets, they had to rise up to or attempt to surpass; the same can be said of us.

Iran is developing nuclear technology. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Other nations/organizations are acquiring old Soviet nuclear weapons that should have been dismantled or protected decades ago. If we accept the Cold War notion of "preparing for peace by preparing for war," then the least we can expect is for other nations to disregard the same military action conventions that we have ourselves.

The Supreme Court can't throw this thing out soon enough (and even then, it's contestable whether that will happen); that politicians stand behind a "yes" vote by claiming that it's an irrelevant vote, one which was on a clearly unconstitutional bill, is embarrassing and a show of a lack of understanding of what the United States is, and a lack of character for standing up for their beliefs (settling on avoiding being attacked for voting "with the terrorists" in attack ads).

Attack ads and this year's congressional campaign had a greater impact on how votes were cast than whether or not this was a sound idea to implement. The very foundation of our democracy was shattered by the fact that the schmucks on Capitol Hill are afraid of attack ads. If there was ever a need for an excuse to impose term limits (another excuse for that is like getting another excuse to breathe air - you have plenty of reasons already), well, here's one for redundancy.