Republicans propose retroactive bill that allows for CIA use of torture

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]


Define a terrorist. Am I a terrorist because I don't blindly support all of our government's actions?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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, present counsel for Human Rights Watch. This is crazy, right? 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.

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 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. You may have seen that. I went down there.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: I did.

O'REILLY: I talked to head interrogator 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.

 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']
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.
[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It doesn't even have to be physical violence that can net you what you need.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Cochese, the thing about torture is that it will get you to admit anything.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like something I'd do for fun.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']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.[/QUOTE]

Another "gut feeling" certainty with no basis in fact, eh?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

If you don't know what you are doing, then you aren't going to be able to get the information you want.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Another "gut feeling" certainty with no basis in fact, eh?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] In your opinion, does stripping someone and putting them in a freezing cold room constitute physical violence?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dopa345']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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Cheese']

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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Cheese']

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!

[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='dopa345']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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If you don't know what you are doing, then you aren't going to be able to get the information you want.[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm

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. "
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I remember the days when all my information came from editorial sources. :rofl:[/quote]

Why is it that anything that doesn't fit your agenda you dismiss as nonsense?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Why is it that anything that doesn't fit your agenda you dismiss as nonsense?[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.

[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']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.[/QUOTE]

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
 
[quote name='schuerm26']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?[/QUOTE]

: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?
 
[quote name='dopa345']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?[/quote] 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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']: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?[/quote]


I suggest putting him on ignore, he's vying for attention and has nothing substantial to say.
 
[quote name='BryceDraven']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Cheese']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.[/QUOTE]

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top