OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[beachlover]

So, any other Piggs disturbed by the actions of the DOJ that permitted the use of waterboarding or other extreme tactics in Gitmo? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30249847/

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

Do other Piggs agree? Do any of you think that the high level folks should account for their actions?

[temeculaguy]

Well, no, I don’t really care. Jack Bauer might be a fictional character but there are many things that happen in order for you to live in relative peace. If you are outraged by something that doesn’t amount to much more than fraternity hazing, then the more they hide it from you the better off you will be. I hope you never find out about what really happens in wars or intelligence gathering.

My advice, just avoid reading these stories, these things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, no sense in getting upset about it, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It’s the same advice I’d give a church going conservative woman about porn. These things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It would be much more fun to chronicle the discussion I once had with a very conservative woman who posed the question “why do men watch porn” and my rebuttal began with “are your sure that women other than youself don’t.” Yes, that would more fun and funnier but it would be even more off topic.

I read the link, Obama said he wouldn’t have any of the CIA agents prosecuted that tortured the 28 terrorists. That’s not enough of a check and balance, he is arguably the most liberal president we have had in decades and he has the liberty of reding the entire book that you can only see a few excerpts from. Is it possible that the info gleaned from those interrogations saved some city in the u.s. from an attack? Did the ends justify the means for him? Probably so. So let it go, just understand that people will get tortured, people will be killed and there are probably at least 40 sexual acts you have never heard about and don’t want to.

[CardiffBaseball]

Outstanding summary TG.

[temeculaguy]

Thanks brother, you should have read it before I edited it for prime time, it was priceless.

[Veritas]

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…

[SanDiegoDave]

The U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).

Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.

OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.

If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.

[afx114]

Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

[blahblahblah]

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.

[Arraya]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Arraya]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Arraya]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Arraya]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Arraya]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Afx: I’m not suggesting being “buddy buddy” with them. There are plenty of effective techniques that can be used, and most of these incorporate perfectly legal methods. For instance, we used to interrogate “platoon” style, meaning we would question prisoners in teams, and each team would go for 6 to 8 hour stretches. It was extremely effective and this same technique is used by US law enforcement, including the FBI.

Another technique would be to sleep deprive someone for a period of days, while playing tapes of a “victim” screaming in agony (supposedly while being tortured) during that period. The prisoner would then be led into a room with a single chair in the middle, torture implements on a table to the side, and blood on the floor. The blood was pig’s blood, the tape was actually one of us screaming and the torture implements had never been used. The prisoner, however, didn’t know any of that and was generally happy to help us in any way that he could. The mere threat of punishment and pain, combined with the sleep deprivation, was hugely effective.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Afx: I’m not suggesting being “buddy buddy” with them. There are plenty of effective techniques that can be used, and most of these incorporate perfectly legal methods. For instance, we used to interrogate “platoon” style, meaning we would question prisoners in teams, and each team would go for 6 to 8 hour stretches. It was extremely effective and this same technique is used by US law enforcement, including the FBI.

Another technique would be to sleep deprive someone for a period of days, while playing tapes of a “victim” screaming in agony (supposedly while being tortured) during that period. The prisoner would then be led into a room with a single chair in the middle, torture implements on a table to the side, and blood on the floor. The blood was pig’s blood, the tape was actually one of us screaming and the torture implements had never been used. The prisoner, however, didn’t know any of that and was generally happy to help us in any way that he could. The mere threat of punishment and pain, combined with the sleep deprivation, was hugely effective.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Afx: I’m not suggesting being “buddy buddy” with them. There are plenty of effective techniques that can be used, and most of these incorporate perfectly legal methods. For instance, we used to interrogate “platoon” style, meaning we would question prisoners in teams, and each team would go for 6 to 8 hour stretches. It was extremely effective and this same technique is used by US law enforcement, including the FBI.

Another technique would be to sleep deprive someone for a period of days, while playing tapes of a “victim” screaming in agony (supposedly while being tortured) during that period. The prisoner would then be led into a room with a single chair in the middle, torture implements on a table to the side, and blood on the floor. The blood was pig’s blood, the tape was actually one of us screaming and the torture implements had never been used. The prisoner, however, didn’t know any of that and was generally happy to help us in any way that he could. The mere threat of punishment and pain, combined with the sleep deprivation, was hugely effective.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Afx: I’m not suggesting being “buddy buddy” with them. There are plenty of effective techniques that can be used, and most of these incorporate perfectly legal methods. For instance, we used to interrogate “platoon” style, meaning we would question prisoners in teams, and each team would go for 6 to 8 hour stretches. It was extremely effective and this same technique is used by US law enforcement, including the FBI.

Another technique would be to sleep deprive someone for a period of days, while playing tapes of a “victim” screaming in agony (supposedly while being tortured) during that period. The prisoner would then be led into a room with a single chair in the middle, torture implements on a table to the side, and blood on the floor. The blood was pig’s blood, the tape was actually one of us screaming and the torture implements had never been used. The prisoner, however, didn’t know any of that and was generally happy to help us in any way that he could. The mere threat of punishment and pain, combined with the sleep deprivation, was hugely effective.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Afx: I’m not suggesting being “buddy buddy” with them. There are plenty of effective techniques that can be used, and most of these incorporate perfectly legal methods. For instance, we used to interrogate “platoon” style, meaning we would question prisoners in teams, and each team would go for 6 to 8 hour stretches. It was extremely effective and this same technique is used by US law enforcement, including the FBI.

Another technique would be to sleep deprive someone for a period of days, while playing tapes of a “victim” screaming in agony (supposedly while being tortured) during that period. The prisoner would then be led into a room with a single chair in the middle, torture implements on a table to the side, and blood on the floor. The blood was pig’s blood, the tape was actually one of us screaming and the torture implements had never been used. The prisoner, however, didn’t know any of that and was generally happy to help us in any way that he could. The mere threat of punishment and pain, combined with the sleep deprivation, was hugely effective.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=afx114]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Maybe Sadaam after some time…saw the humor in being portrayed as Satan’s gay dom in the South Park movie. Apparently the marines played it for him a lot.

[Zeitgeist]

College Frat boys routinely participate in various forms of torture including sleep deprivation. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Many of you are truly naive when it comes to dealing with evil. You must be religious because you are so willing to refuse to sink to the level required by the extreme threat to your country. Your meekness is interpreted as weakness by the enemy, not adherence to a rule of law. They are playing by different rules and they are playing to win. Apparently you have not figured that one out.

[Zeitgeist]

College Frat boys routinely participate in various forms of torture including sleep deprivation. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Many of you are truly naive when it comes to dealing with evil. You must be religious because you are so willing to refuse to sink to the level required by the extreme threat to your country. Your meekness is interpreted as weakness by the enemy, not adherence to a rule of law. They are playing by different rules and they are playing to win. Apparently you have not figured that one out.

[Zeitgeist]

College Frat boys routinely participate in various forms of torture including sleep deprivation. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Many of you are truly naive when it comes to dealing with evil. You must be religious because you are so willing to refuse to sink to the level required by the extreme threat to your country. Your meekness is interpreted as weakness by the enemy, not adherence to a rule of law. They are playing by different rules and they are playing to win. Apparently you have not figured that one out.

[Zeitgeist]

College Frat boys routinely participate in various forms of torture including sleep deprivation. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Many of you are truly naive when it comes to dealing with evil. You must be religious because you are so willing to refuse to sink to the level required by the extreme threat to your country. Your meekness is interpreted as weakness by the enemy, not adherence to a rule of law. They are playing by different rules and they are playing to win. Apparently you have not figured that one out.

[Zeitgeist]

College Frat boys routinely participate in various forms of torture including sleep deprivation. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Many of you are truly naive when it comes to dealing with evil. You must be religious because you are so willing to refuse to sink to the level required by the extreme threat to your country. Your meekness is interpreted as weakness by the enemy, not adherence to a rule of law. They are playing by different rules and they are playing to win. Apparently you have not figured that one out.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=afx114]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Maybe Sadaam after some time…saw the humor in being portrayed as Satan’s gay dom in the South Park movie. Apparently the marines played it for him a lot.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=afx114]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Maybe Sadaam after some time…saw the humor in being portrayed as Satan’s gay dom in the South Park movie. Apparently the marines played it for him a lot.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=afx114]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Maybe Sadaam after some time…saw the humor in being portrayed as Satan’s gay dom in the South Park movie. Apparently the marines played it for him a lot.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=afx114]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Maybe Sadaam after some time…saw the humor in being portrayed as Satan’s gay dom in the South Park movie. Apparently the marines played it for him a lot.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Even the Nazi’s knew this was the most effective form of gathering useful information from a prisoner. Their best interrogators never used torture, nor did they threaten the use of torture. They essentially used the Copenhagen Syndrome to get the prisoners to tell them willingly what they wanted to know, and ALL of what they wanted to know. A cooperative prisoner is much more useful than an uncooperative one.

Over a prolonged period of time, I don’t even think the most radical extremist would be able to hold out under this method. You can essentially “deprogram” them at your leisure. And I’m pretty sure that any extremist hard core enough to resist this would be equally difficult to break via torture.

Using torture is counterproductive. The prisoner being tortured is constantly reminded of why they despise the torturer (and by extension the country employing them), and will simply tell the torturer enough to get them to stop – and that will be whatever the torturer wants to hear – not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.

The only situation I could see torture being even remotely useful for is in the “Ticking Time Bomb” situation – and even then, it’s only because there is no time to do anything else – it’s not because the information gained is reliable. And frankly, I agree with the people above – in that incredibly rare scenario, you might be able to justify breaking the law, but it doesn’t justify crafting the law around that scenario and assuming that that scenario is a common one (frankly, I don’t know if that scenario has ever actually occurred).

[sd_matt]

Has it actually occurred? I don’t know. Funny thing is how much time is spent on debate as compared to fact finding.

[Arraya]

It’s not so much of the techniques used. Though, some are quite sickening and butal, It’s more the holding without trial for years at a time. Especially, since the multitude of Bush-ear creepy terrorist laws can be used against American citizens.

Also, you would think the constant harrassment and beatings could only yield so much information after, say, a few months. But after 5+ years it gets a little sadistic.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Full_testimony_of_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoner_0110.html

I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder – assassination – by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia

They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib (sunset) prayer and beat him severely. That was in isolation block I India. On that same day, they came and beat me.

There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.

These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders. They tortured the detainees in the name of the law. There are too many incidents to mention or even count. Perhaps those I have mentioned are enough because many of these incidents have been mentioned in the media.

She took off her underpants, she was wearing a sanitary towel, and drops of her menstrual blood fell on me and then she assaulted me. I tried to fight her off but the soldiers held me down with the chains forcefully and ruthlessly so that they almost cut my hands. I spat at her on her face; she put her hand on her dirty menstrual blood that had fallen on my body and wiped it on my chest.

Our foreign policy is a morally bankrupt as our financial sector.

But some cynics darkly suspect that scenarios something like the one sketched out above have already been enacted; for instance, in the “new Pearl Harbor” that struck America on September 11, 2001 – one year after a group channeling the views of future Bush Administration bigwigs (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and many others) had openly pined for a “new Pear Harbor” to “catalyze” the American people into supporting their militarist agenda, which included an invasion of Iraq – whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

But leaving aside for now the ever-thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, incompetence and fate involved in 9/11, we can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the “Af-Pak” front to launch terrorist attacks.

[Arraya]

It’s not so much of the techniques used. Though, some are quite sickening and butal, It’s more the holding without trial for years at a time. Especially, since the multitude of Bush-ear creepy terrorist laws can be used against American citizens.

Also, you would think the constant harrassment and beatings could only yield so much information after, say, a few months. But after 5+ years it gets a little sadistic.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Full_testimony_of_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoner_0110.html

I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder – assassination – by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia

They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib (sunset) prayer and beat him severely. That was in isolation block I India. On that same day, they came and beat me.

There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.

These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders. They tortured the detainees in the name of the law. There are too many incidents to mention or even count. Perhaps those I have mentioned are enough because many of these incidents have been mentioned in the media.

She took off her underpants, she was wearing a sanitary towel, and drops of her menstrual blood fell on me and then she assaulted me. I tried to fight her off but the soldiers held me down with the chains forcefully and ruthlessly so that they almost cut my hands. I spat at her on her face; she put her hand on her dirty menstrual blood that had fallen on my body and wiped it on my chest.

Our foreign policy is a morally bankrupt as our financial sector.

But some cynics darkly suspect that scenarios something like the one sketched out above have already been enacted; for instance, in the “new Pearl Harbor” that struck America on September 11, 2001 – one year after a group channeling the views of future Bush Administration bigwigs (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and many others) had openly pined for a “new Pear Harbor” to “catalyze” the American people into supporting their militarist agenda, which included an invasion of Iraq – whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

But leaving aside for now the ever-thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, incompetence and fate involved in 9/11, we can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the “Af-Pak” front to launch terrorist attacks.

[Arraya]

It’s not so much of the techniques used. Though, some are quite sickening and butal, It’s more the holding without trial for years at a time. Especially, since the multitude of Bush-ear creepy terrorist laws can be used against American citizens.

Also, you would think the constant harrassment and beatings could only yield so much information after, say, a few months. But after 5+ years it gets a little sadistic.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Full_testimony_of_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoner_0110.html

I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder – assassination – by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia

They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib (sunset) prayer and beat him severely. That was in isolation block I India. On that same day, they came and beat me.

There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.

These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders. They tortured the detainees in the name of the law. There are too many incidents to mention or even count. Perhaps those I have mentioned are enough because many of these incidents have been mentioned in the media.

She took off her underpants, she was wearing a sanitary towel, and drops of her menstrual blood fell on me and then she assaulted me. I tried to fight her off but the soldiers held me down with the chains forcefully and ruthlessly so that they almost cut my hands. I spat at her on her face; she put her hand on her dirty menstrual blood that had fallen on my body and wiped it on my chest.

Our foreign policy is a morally bankrupt as our financial sector.

But some cynics darkly suspect that scenarios something like the one sketched out above have already been enacted; for instance, in the “new Pearl Harbor” that struck America on September 11, 2001 – one year after a group channeling the views of future Bush Administration bigwigs (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and many others) had openly pined for a “new Pear Harbor” to “catalyze” the American people into supporting their militarist agenda, which included an invasion of Iraq – whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

But leaving aside for now the ever-thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, incompetence and fate involved in 9/11, we can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the “Af-Pak” front to launch terrorist attacks.

[Arraya]

It’s not so much of the techniques used. Though, some are quite sickening and butal, It’s more the holding without trial for years at a time. Especially, since the multitude of Bush-ear creepy terrorist laws can be used against American citizens.

Also, you would think the constant harrassment and beatings could only yield so much information after, say, a few months. But after 5+ years it gets a little sadistic.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Full_testimony_of_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoner_0110.html

I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder – assassination – by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia

They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib (sunset) prayer and beat him severely. That was in isolation block I India. On that same day, they came and beat me.

There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.

These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders. They tortured the detainees in the name of the law. There are too many incidents to mention or even count. Perhaps those I have mentioned are enough because many of these incidents have been mentioned in the media.

She took off her underpants, she was wearing a sanitary towel, and drops of her menstrual blood fell on me and then she assaulted me. I tried to fight her off but the soldiers held me down with the chains forcefully and ruthlessly so that they almost cut my hands. I spat at her on her face; she put her hand on her dirty menstrual blood that had fallen on my body and wiped it on my chest.

Our foreign policy is a morally bankrupt as our financial sector.

But some cynics darkly suspect that scenarios something like the one sketched out above have already been enacted; for instance, in the “new Pearl Harbor” that struck America on September 11, 2001 – one year after a group channeling the views of future Bush Administration bigwigs (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and many others) had openly pined for a “new Pear Harbor” to “catalyze” the American people into supporting their militarist agenda, which included an invasion of Iraq – whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

But leaving aside for now the ever-thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, incompetence and fate involved in 9/11, we can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the “Af-Pak” front to launch terrorist attacks.

[Arraya]

It’s not so much of the techniques used. Though, some are quite sickening and butal, It’s more the holding without trial for years at a time. Especially, since the multitude of Bush-ear creepy terrorist laws can be used against American citizens.

Also, you would think the constant harrassment and beatings could only yield so much information after, say, a few months. But after 5+ years it gets a little sadistic.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Full_testimony_of_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoner_0110.html

I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder – assassination – by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia

They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib (sunset) prayer and beat him severely. That was in isolation block I India. On that same day, they came and beat me.

There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.

These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders. They tortured the detainees in the name of the law. There are too many incidents to mention or even count. Perhaps those I have mentioned are enough because many of these incidents have been mentioned in the media.

She took off her underpants, she was wearing a sanitary towel, and drops of her menstrual blood fell on me and then she assaulted me. I tried to fight her off but the soldiers held me down with the chains forcefully and ruthlessly so that they almost cut my hands. I spat at her on her face; she put her hand on her dirty menstrual blood that had fallen on my body and wiped it on my chest.

Our foreign policy is a morally bankrupt as our financial sector.

But some cynics darkly suspect that scenarios something like the one sketched out above have already been enacted; for instance, in the “new Pearl Harbor” that struck America on September 11, 2001 – one year after a group channeling the views of future Bush Administration bigwigs (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and many others) had openly pined for a “new Pear Harbor” to “catalyze” the American people into supporting their militarist agenda, which included an invasion of Iraq – whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

But leaving aside for now the ever-thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, incompetence and fate involved in 9/11, we can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the “Af-Pak” front to launch terrorist attacks.

[sd_matt]

Has it actually occurred? I don’t know. Funny thing is how much time is spent on debate as compared to fact finding.

[sd_matt]

Has it actually occurred? I don’t know. Funny thing is how much time is spent on debate as compared to fact finding.

[sd_matt]

Has it actually occurred? I don’t know. Funny thing is how much time is spent on debate as compared to fact finding.

[sd_matt]

Has it actually occurred? I don’t know. Funny thing is how much time is spent on debate as compared to fact finding.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Even the Nazi’s knew this was the most effective form of gathering useful information from a prisoner. Their best interrogators never used torture, nor did they threaten the use of torture. They essentially used the Copenhagen Syndrome to get the prisoners to tell them willingly what they wanted to know, and ALL of what they wanted to know. A cooperative prisoner is much more useful than an uncooperative one.

Over a prolonged period of time, I don’t even think the most radical extremist would be able to hold out under this method. You can essentially “deprogram” them at your leisure. And I’m pretty sure that any extremist hard core enough to resist this would be equally difficult to break via torture.

Using torture is counterproductive. The prisoner being tortured is constantly reminded of why they despise the torturer (and by extension the country employing them), and will simply tell the torturer enough to get them to stop – and that will be whatever the torturer wants to hear – not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.

The only situation I could see torture being even remotely useful for is in the “Ticking Time Bomb” situation – and even then, it’s only because there is no time to do anything else – it’s not because the information gained is reliable. And frankly, I agree with the people above – in that incredibly rare scenario, you might be able to justify breaking the law, but it doesn’t justify crafting the law around that scenario and assuming that that scenario is a common one (frankly, I don’t know if that scenario has ever actually occurred).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Even the Nazi’s knew this was the most effective form of gathering useful information from a prisoner. Their best interrogators never used torture, nor did they threaten the use of torture. They essentially used the Copenhagen Syndrome to get the prisoners to tell them willingly what they wanted to know, and ALL of what they wanted to know. A cooperative prisoner is much more useful than an uncooperative one.

Over a prolonged period of time, I don’t even think the most radical extremist would be able to hold out under this method. You can essentially “deprogram” them at your leisure. And I’m pretty sure that any extremist hard core enough to resist this would be equally difficult to break via torture.

Using torture is counterproductive. The prisoner being tortured is constantly reminded of why they despise the torturer (and by extension the country employing them), and will simply tell the torturer enough to get them to stop – and that will be whatever the torturer wants to hear – not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.

The only situation I could see torture being even remotely useful for is in the “Ticking Time Bomb” situation – and even then, it’s only because there is no time to do anything else – it’s not because the information gained is reliable. And frankly, I agree with the people above – in that incredibly rare scenario, you might be able to justify breaking the law, but it doesn’t justify crafting the law around that scenario and assuming that that scenario is a common one (frankly, I don’t know if that scenario has ever actually occurred).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Even the Nazi’s knew this was the most effective form of gathering useful information from a prisoner. Their best interrogators never used torture, nor did they threaten the use of torture. They essentially used the Copenhagen Syndrome to get the prisoners to tell them willingly what they wanted to know, and ALL of what they wanted to know. A cooperative prisoner is much more useful than an uncooperative one.

Over a prolonged period of time, I don’t even think the most radical extremist would be able to hold out under this method. You can essentially “deprogram” them at your leisure. And I’m pretty sure that any extremist hard core enough to resist this would be equally difficult to break via torture.

Using torture is counterproductive. The prisoner being tortured is constantly reminded of why they despise the torturer (and by extension the country employing them), and will simply tell the torturer enough to get them to stop – and that will be whatever the torturer wants to hear – not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.

The only situation I could see torture being even remotely useful for is in the “Ticking Time Bomb” situation – and even then, it’s only because there is no time to do anything else – it’s not because the information gained is reliable. And frankly, I agree with the people above – in that incredibly rare scenario, you might be able to justify breaking the law, but it doesn’t justify crafting the law around that scenario and assuming that that scenario is a common one (frankly, I don’t know if that scenario has ever actually occurred).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

Even the Nazi’s knew this was the most effective form of gathering useful information from a prisoner. Their best interrogators never used torture, nor did they threaten the use of torture. They essentially used the Copenhagen Syndrome to get the prisoners to tell them willingly what they wanted to know, and ALL of what they wanted to know. A cooperative prisoner is much more useful than an uncooperative one.

Over a prolonged period of time, I don’t even think the most radical extremist would be able to hold out under this method. You can essentially “deprogram” them at your leisure. And I’m pretty sure that any extremist hard core enough to resist this would be equally difficult to break via torture.

Using torture is counterproductive. The prisoner being tortured is constantly reminded of why they despise the torturer (and by extension the country employing them), and will simply tell the torturer enough to get them to stop – and that will be whatever the torturer wants to hear – not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.

The only situation I could see torture being even remotely useful for is in the “Ticking Time Bomb” situation – and even then, it’s only because there is no time to do anything else – it’s not because the information gained is reliable. And frankly, I agree with the people above – in that incredibly rare scenario, you might be able to justify breaking the law, but it doesn’t justify crafting the law around that scenario and assuming that that scenario is a common one (frankly, I don’t know if that scenario has ever actually occurred).

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[Shadowfax]

[quote=patb][quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron[/quote]

Psychologists believe that the trust factor is fundamental to human nature. Spending time questioning, probing, re-examining previous testimony will lead to breaks in the story–pieces that don’t fit. More than that, al Queda and other terrorist types no doubt, have been “conditioned” or brainwashed to think that the west (Americans in particular) are evil and will torture them and have prepared them for those outcomes. What a mind-fuck for them to be treated according to the conventions! Why not be the shining light of humanity and keep our esteemed and once distinguished world position as a nation of laws that adheres to what is morally right in the world?

Waterboarding someone over 100 times–when did the perpetrators start to think maybe this wasn’t effective? Did they just get bored each day and pull the same poor sap out of his cell for some more “entertainment?”

Oh, and here is a short excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention regarding POWs (and one of the participants in a “war” does not need to acknowledge there is a war for hte conventions to apply) for the person who didn’t think the conventions applied except to treatment civilians in wartime by their own government–that was the first convention:

Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=patb][quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron[/quote]

Psychologists believe that the trust factor is fundamental to human nature. Spending time questioning, probing, re-examining previous testimony will lead to breaks in the story–pieces that don’t fit. More than that, al Queda and other terrorist types no doubt, have been “conditioned” or brainwashed to think that the west (Americans in particular) are evil and will torture them and have prepared them for those outcomes. What a mind-fuck for them to be treated according to the conventions! Why not be the shining light of humanity and keep our esteemed and once distinguished world position as a nation of laws that adheres to what is morally right in the world?

Waterboarding someone over 100 times–when did the perpetrators start to think maybe this wasn’t effective? Did they just get bored each day and pull the same poor sap out of his cell for some more “entertainment?”

Oh, and here is a short excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention regarding POWs (and one of the participants in a “war” does not need to acknowledge there is a war for hte conventions to apply) for the person who didn’t think the conventions applied except to treatment civilians in wartime by their own government–that was the first convention:

Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=patb][quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron[/quote]

Psychologists believe that the trust factor is fundamental to human nature. Spending time questioning, probing, re-examining previous testimony will lead to breaks in the story–pieces that don’t fit. More than that, al Queda and other terrorist types no doubt, have been “conditioned” or brainwashed to think that the west (Americans in particular) are evil and will torture them and have prepared them for those outcomes. What a mind-fuck for them to be treated according to the conventions! Why not be the shining light of humanity and keep our esteemed and once distinguished world position as a nation of laws that adheres to what is morally right in the world?

Waterboarding someone over 100 times–when did the perpetrators start to think maybe this wasn’t effective? Did they just get bored each day and pull the same poor sap out of his cell for some more “entertainment?”

Oh, and here is a short excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention regarding POWs (and one of the participants in a “war” does not need to acknowledge there is a war for hte conventions to apply) for the person who didn’t think the conventions applied except to treatment civilians in wartime by their own government–that was the first convention:

Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=patb][quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron[/quote]

Psychologists believe that the trust factor is fundamental to human nature. Spending time questioning, probing, re-examining previous testimony will lead to breaks in the story–pieces that don’t fit. More than that, al Queda and other terrorist types no doubt, have been “conditioned” or brainwashed to think that the west (Americans in particular) are evil and will torture them and have prepared them for those outcomes. What a mind-fuck for them to be treated according to the conventions! Why not be the shining light of humanity and keep our esteemed and once distinguished world position as a nation of laws that adheres to what is morally right in the world?

Waterboarding someone over 100 times–when did the perpetrators start to think maybe this wasn’t effective? Did they just get bored each day and pull the same poor sap out of his cell for some more “entertainment?”

Oh, and here is a short excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention regarding POWs (and one of the participants in a “war” does not need to acknowledge there is a war for hte conventions to apply) for the person who didn’t think the conventions applied except to treatment civilians in wartime by their own government–that was the first convention:

Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=patb][quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron[/quote]

Psychologists believe that the trust factor is fundamental to human nature. Spending time questioning, probing, re-examining previous testimony will lead to breaks in the story–pieces that don’t fit. More than that, al Queda and other terrorist types no doubt, have been “conditioned” or brainwashed to think that the west (Americans in particular) are evil and will torture them and have prepared them for those outcomes. What a mind-fuck for them to be treated according to the conventions! Why not be the shining light of humanity and keep our esteemed and once distinguished world position as a nation of laws that adheres to what is morally right in the world?

Waterboarding someone over 100 times–when did the perpetrators start to think maybe this wasn’t effective? Did they just get bored each day and pull the same poor sap out of his cell for some more “entertainment?”

Oh, and here is a short excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention regarding POWs (and one of the participants in a “war” does not need to acknowledge there is a war for hte conventions to apply) for the person who didn’t think the conventions applied except to treatment civilians in wartime by their own government–that was the first convention:

Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.[/quote]

CONCHO: Anyone that’s been through SERE School or E&E (Escape and Evade) can tell you all about waterboarding. I’d definitely consider it torture, but many don’t (especially those that have never had it done to them).

My point is, where do you draw the line? I know what I consider torture and I saw all manner of horrible things done to others and nearly all of it with the tacit approval of the US government. This was well before 9/11 and Gitmo and well after Vietnam.

The government will do whatever it deems necessary and, more importantly, whatever it can get away with, in pursuit of it’s goals (which aren’t always OUR goals).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.[/quote]

CONCHO: Anyone that’s been through SERE School or E&E (Escape and Evade) can tell you all about waterboarding. I’d definitely consider it torture, but many don’t (especially those that have never had it done to them).

My point is, where do you draw the line? I know what I consider torture and I saw all manner of horrible things done to others and nearly all of it with the tacit approval of the US government. This was well before 9/11 and Gitmo and well after Vietnam.

The government will do whatever it deems necessary and, more importantly, whatever it can get away with, in pursuit of it’s goals (which aren’t always OUR goals).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.[/quote]

CONCHO: Anyone that’s been through SERE School or E&E (Escape and Evade) can tell you all about waterboarding. I’d definitely consider it torture, but many don’t (especially those that have never had it done to them).

My point is, where do you draw the line? I know what I consider torture and I saw all manner of horrible things done to others and nearly all of it with the tacit approval of the US government. This was well before 9/11 and Gitmo and well after Vietnam.

The government will do whatever it deems necessary and, more importantly, whatever it can get away with, in pursuit of it’s goals (which aren’t always OUR goals).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.[/quote]

CONCHO: Anyone that’s been through SERE School or E&E (Escape and Evade) can tell you all about waterboarding. I’d definitely consider it torture, but many don’t (especially those that have never had it done to them).

My point is, where do you draw the line? I know what I consider torture and I saw all manner of horrible things done to others and nearly all of it with the tacit approval of the US government. This was well before 9/11 and Gitmo and well after Vietnam.

The government will do whatever it deems necessary and, more importantly, whatever it can get away with, in pursuit of it’s goals (which aren’t always OUR goals).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.[/quote]

CONCHO: Anyone that’s been through SERE School or E&E (Escape and Evade) can tell you all about waterboarding. I’d definitely consider it torture, but many don’t (especially those that have never had it done to them).

My point is, where do you draw the line? I know what I consider torture and I saw all manner of horrible things done to others and nearly all of it with the tacit approval of the US government. This was well before 9/11 and Gitmo and well after Vietnam.

The government will do whatever it deems necessary and, more importantly, whatever it can get away with, in pursuit of it’s goals (which aren’t always OUR goals).

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[blahblahblah]

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.

[blahblahblah]

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.

[blahblahblah]

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.

[blahblahblah]

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.

[Arraya]

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.
— Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
— Ben Franklin

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Arraya]

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.
— Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
— Ben Franklin

[Arraya]

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.
— Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
— Ben Franklin

[Arraya]

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.
— Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
— Ben Franklin

[Arraya]

An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.
— Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
— Ben Franklin

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[felix]

[quote=patb]
If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.[/quote]

You can say the opposite also.

If torture wasn’t effective it would not be utilized at all. However, we all know it has been around a very long time. Why? The answer is because it is effective in certain circumstances.

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.

[NotCranky]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.

[NotCranky]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.

[NotCranky]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.

[NotCranky]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.

[NotCranky]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.

Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.

Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.

Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.

Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.

Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.

[Arraya]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another

Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that “the ordinary religion of the law school classroom” is “a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism… I think that applies here.

If you behave like a terrorist because you claim you are “fighting terrorism”, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the values you claim to be fighting for. Period.

I am no pacifist, I just would not proceed in the manner the military industrial complex favors. In case you have not noticed, their methods have failed to dent terrorism, we are losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq will have a civil war the moment the USA leaves. We are losing the ‘100 Year War on Terra’, not winning it, and that is our fault. The terrorists just keep on doing what they do, terrorizing, regardless. It is up to us to change our tactics and strategy, if we want to defeat their ideology.

Terrorism is a crime, all aspects are criminal, it does not require special laws, or a police state to defeat it. It is a matter of surveillance, good police/intelligence work, the occasional special forces raid, co-ordinated with allies world wide. Large scale invasions and WWII style campaigns won’t, they just destroy the countryside and slaughter innocents, making more recruits for the terrorists. It’s not that hard to understand. Reports of sexual and physical abuses around the world to do stop extremist ideology. They exacerbate it. In fact, one could argue that stopping terrorism is not even a policy of the USG because their methods are so incomprehensibly counterproductive.

But Americans don’t want justice they want revenge and they don’t care about freedom, they care about comfort and they would trade humanity for patriotism in a second. This is our undoing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘ -Voltaire

[Arraya]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another

Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that “the ordinary religion of the law school classroom” is “a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism… I think that applies here.

If you behave like a terrorist because you claim you are “fighting terrorism”, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the values you claim to be fighting for. Period.

I am no pacifist, I just would not proceed in the manner the military industrial complex favors. In case you have not noticed, their methods have failed to dent terrorism, we are losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq will have a civil war the moment the USA leaves. We are losing the ‘100 Year War on Terra’, not winning it, and that is our fault. The terrorists just keep on doing what they do, terrorizing, regardless. It is up to us to change our tactics and strategy, if we want to defeat their ideology.

Terrorism is a crime, all aspects are criminal, it does not require special laws, or a police state to defeat it. It is a matter of surveillance, good police/intelligence work, the occasional special forces raid, co-ordinated with allies world wide. Large scale invasions and WWII style campaigns won’t, they just destroy the countryside and slaughter innocents, making more recruits for the terrorists. It’s not that hard to understand. Reports of sexual and physical abuses around the world to do stop extremist ideology. They exacerbate it. In fact, one could argue that stopping terrorism is not even a policy of the USG because their methods are so incomprehensibly counterproductive.

But Americans don’t want justice they want revenge and they don’t care about freedom, they care about comfort and they would trade humanity for patriotism in a second. This is our undoing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘ -Voltaire

[Arraya]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another

Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that “the ordinary religion of the law school classroom” is “a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism… I think that applies here.

If you behave like a terrorist because you claim you are “fighting terrorism”, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the values you claim to be fighting for. Period.

I am no pacifist, I just would not proceed in the manner the military industrial complex favors. In case you have not noticed, their methods have failed to dent terrorism, we are losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq will have a civil war the moment the USA leaves. We are losing the ‘100 Year War on Terra’, not winning it, and that is our fault. The terrorists just keep on doing what they do, terrorizing, regardless. It is up to us to change our tactics and strategy, if we want to defeat their ideology.

Terrorism is a crime, all aspects are criminal, it does not require special laws, or a police state to defeat it. It is a matter of surveillance, good police/intelligence work, the occasional special forces raid, co-ordinated with allies world wide. Large scale invasions and WWII style campaigns won’t, they just destroy the countryside and slaughter innocents, making more recruits for the terrorists. It’s not that hard to understand. Reports of sexual and physical abuses around the world to do stop extremist ideology. They exacerbate it. In fact, one could argue that stopping terrorism is not even a policy of the USG because their methods are so incomprehensibly counterproductive.

But Americans don’t want justice they want revenge and they don’t care about freedom, they care about comfort and they would trade humanity for patriotism in a second. This is our undoing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘ -Voltaire

[Arraya]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another

Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that “the ordinary religion of the law school classroom” is “a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism… I think that applies here.

If you behave like a terrorist because you claim you are “fighting terrorism”, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the values you claim to be fighting for. Period.

I am no pacifist, I just would not proceed in the manner the military industrial complex favors. In case you have not noticed, their methods have failed to dent terrorism, we are losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq will have a civil war the moment the USA leaves. We are losing the ‘100 Year War on Terra’, not winning it, and that is our fault. The terrorists just keep on doing what they do, terrorizing, regardless. It is up to us to change our tactics and strategy, if we want to defeat their ideology.

Terrorism is a crime, all aspects are criminal, it does not require special laws, or a police state to defeat it. It is a matter of surveillance, good police/intelligence work, the occasional special forces raid, co-ordinated with allies world wide. Large scale invasions and WWII style campaigns won’t, they just destroy the countryside and slaughter innocents, making more recruits for the terrorists. It’s not that hard to understand. Reports of sexual and physical abuses around the world to do stop extremist ideology. They exacerbate it. In fact, one could argue that stopping terrorism is not even a policy of the USG because their methods are so incomprehensibly counterproductive.

But Americans don’t want justice they want revenge and they don’t care about freedom, they care about comfort and they would trade humanity for patriotism in a second. This is our undoing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘ -Voltaire

[Arraya]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another

Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that “the ordinary religion of the law school classroom” is “a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism… I think that applies here.

If you behave like a terrorist because you claim you are “fighting terrorism”, you are a hypocrite and unworthy of the values you claim to be fighting for. Period.

I am no pacifist, I just would not proceed in the manner the military industrial complex favors. In case you have not noticed, their methods have failed to dent terrorism, we are losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq will have a civil war the moment the USA leaves. We are losing the ‘100 Year War on Terra’, not winning it, and that is our fault. The terrorists just keep on doing what they do, terrorizing, regardless. It is up to us to change our tactics and strategy, if we want to defeat their ideology.

Terrorism is a crime, all aspects are criminal, it does not require special laws, or a police state to defeat it. It is a matter of surveillance, good police/intelligence work, the occasional special forces raid, co-ordinated with allies world wide. Large scale invasions and WWII style campaigns won’t, they just destroy the countryside and slaughter innocents, making more recruits for the terrorists. It’s not that hard to understand. Reports of sexual and physical abuses around the world to do stop extremist ideology. They exacerbate it. In fact, one could argue that stopping terrorism is not even a policy of the USG because their methods are so incomprehensibly counterproductive.

But Americans don’t want justice they want revenge and they don’t care about freedom, they care about comfort and they would trade humanity for patriotism in a second. This is our undoing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.‘ -Voltaire

[felix]

[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]

Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.

And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.

Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.

I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114][quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.
[/quote]
agreed

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114][quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.
[/quote]
agreed

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114][quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.
[/quote]
agreed

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114][quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.
[/quote]
agreed

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114][quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.
[/quote]
agreed

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.

[afx114]

[quote=felix]Again we are in need of defining torture.[/quote]

I’ll say it again: we defined waterboarding as torture when we executed the Japanese for using it in WWII.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix]I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
[/quote]

So did the 183rd waterboarding work?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix]I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
[/quote]

So did the 183rd waterboarding work?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix]I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
[/quote]

So did the 183rd waterboarding work?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix]I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
[/quote]

So did the 183rd waterboarding work?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix]I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.
[/quote]

So did the 183rd waterboarding work?

[felix]

[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]

Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.

And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.

Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.

I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.

[felix]

[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]

Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.

And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.

Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.

I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.

[felix]

[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]

Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.

And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.

Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.

I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.

[felix]

[quote=Shadowfax][quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.
[/quote]

Again we are in need of defining torture. I said there were opinions given to the Bush administration saying the techniques used were not torture and you dismiss that by saying you can find lawyers who will say anything. I am not doubting that, as I too, am a lawyer but it doesn’t mean their opinion was wrong and it definitely doesn’t mean the Bush administration was wrong to rely on such.

And as far as getting Congressional approval for these techniques, it seems more is coming out on this every day. It appears that some if not many in Congress and particularly those well placed (Pelosi)did know what was going on and didn’t raise any complaints about it at the time.

Lastly, it is clearly illogical for intelligent people to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or torture if it didn’t work. We have some very intelligent folks in interrogation. To assume that everyone through history who used extreme techniques to get info did so because the were sadists or something and not because it gave them real info seems naive.

I am not saying it works in all cases but it is clear from everything I read that certain more extreme techniques work very well in certain circumstances and other less extreme techniques work better in other circumstances. You must not be looking at very many sources to say, “all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel”.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that you can get a lawyer to give AN OPINION as to the interpretation of “the law” that will support any position (or proposed plan of action). Some opinions are better supported by “the law” than others, but there are lawyers who are willing to support, or are themselves in favor of, one political agenda over another. The fact that the AG’s office investigated these methods and found that they did not consitute torture does not prove anything. All the human rights agencies in the world are staffed with lawyers who say the opposite. In the end, you have to search your soul and decide what is right thing to do? The fact that the Bush administration acted without congressional support in these areas is the real litmus test–as the voice of the electorate, I am with those on this board that believe that we are a nation of laws, that our ideals matter and that if we were going to embark on “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture-lite, we should have take the proper, careful steps to bring that in line with our laws. We signed treaties saying we won’t torture. We publish reports (state department) wagging our fingers at other nations for doing the same acts. We have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

I am with others, too, that it is not remotely clear that such techniques gave us any worthwhile intelligence. OF COURSE the bushies will say that they got good info that prevented further attacks.

The fact is, we, the people, don’t know one way or the other what info was obtained through these methods and what info was obtained through good old fashioned sleuthing, being observant, on heightened alert, citizen tips, etc. We don’t know. Until we know, all the experts I have seen say torture is a poor source of intel. If it’s not effective, why use it? Leads me to think that people are sickos–and using terror/torture to combat terror is not what America is supposed to be about.

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. [/quote]

That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.

Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?[/quote]

afx–I second that.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?[/quote]

afx–I second that.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?[/quote]

afx–I second that.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?[/quote]

afx–I second that.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?[/quote]

afx–I second that.

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[felix]

[quote=patb]
If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.[/quote]

You can say the opposite also.

If torture wasn’t effective it would not be utilized at all. However, we all know it has been around a very long time. Why? The answer is because it is effective in certain circumstances.

[felix]

[quote=patb]
If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.[/quote]

You can say the opposite also.

If torture wasn’t effective it would not be utilized at all. However, we all know it has been around a very long time. Why? The answer is because it is effective in certain circumstances.

[felix]

[quote=patb]
If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.[/quote]

You can say the opposite also.

If torture wasn’t effective it would not be utilized at all. However, we all know it has been around a very long time. Why? The answer is because it is effective in certain circumstances.

[felix]

[quote=patb]
If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.[/quote]

You can say the opposite also.

If torture wasn’t effective it would not be utilized at all. However, we all know it has been around a very long time. Why? The answer is because it is effective in certain circumstances.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[afx114]

Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

[afx114]

Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

[afx114]

Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

[afx114]

Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

[SanDiegoDave]

The U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).

Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.

OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.

If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.

[SanDiegoDave]

The U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).

Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.

OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.

If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.

[SanDiegoDave]

The U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).

Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.

OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.

If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.

[SanDiegoDave]

The U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).

Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.

OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.

If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.

[Veritas]

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…

[Veritas]

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…

[Veritas]

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…

[Veritas]

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…

[temeculaguy]

Thanks brother, you should have read it before I edited it for prime time, it was priceless.

[temeculaguy]

Thanks brother, you should have read it before I edited it for prime time, it was priceless.

[temeculaguy]

Thanks brother, you should have read it before I edited it for prime time, it was priceless.

[temeculaguy]

Thanks brother, you should have read it before I edited it for prime time, it was priceless.

[CardiffBaseball]

Outstanding summary TG.

[CardiffBaseball]

Outstanding summary TG.

[CardiffBaseball]

Outstanding summary TG.

[CardiffBaseball]

Outstanding summary TG.

[svelte]

Man, I think it is pretty warped to compare torture to sex. Sex is between two consenting persons…torture, I’m pretty sure, isn’t.

And last I knew, our government wasn’t creating porn, but it was torturing.

I really don’t want my government creating porn or torture, personally.

Though non-govt-sponsored porn is A-OK by me. Not so with torture.

[temeculaguy]

svelte, it was an analogy, not a comparison. I am warped, but that is not relevent for purposes of this discussion, using an unrelated topic to illustrate how something can be offensive to some and not to others, or offensive but neccesary, made it the perfect choice. There are only a handful of subjects that I use for analogies (wine, women, cigars, porn, sports), and of those five essential keys to happiness, it seemed the most aplicable at the time.

[scaredyclassic]

torture — bad.

torture — unnecessary.

you waive the right to complain about others torturing americans when you torture your prisoners.

why not just torture people to confess to crimes generally?

[scaredyclassic]

torture — bad.

torture — unnecessary.

you waive the right to complain about others torturing americans when you torture your prisoners.

why not just torture people to confess to crimes generally?

[scaredyclassic]

torture — bad.

torture — unnecessary.

you waive the right to complain about others torturing americans when you torture your prisoners.

why not just torture people to confess to crimes generally?

[scaredyclassic]

torture — bad.

torture — unnecessary.

you waive the right to complain about others torturing americans when you torture your prisoners.

why not just torture people to confess to crimes generally?

[scaredyclassic]

torture — bad.

torture — unnecessary.

you waive the right to complain about others torturing americans when you torture your prisoners.

why not just torture people to confess to crimes generally?

[temeculaguy]

svelte, it was an analogy, not a comparison. I am warped, but that is not relevent for purposes of this discussion, using an unrelated topic to illustrate how something can be offensive to some and not to others, or offensive but neccesary, made it the perfect choice. There are only a handful of subjects that I use for analogies (wine, women, cigars, porn, sports), and of those five essential keys to happiness, it seemed the most aplicable at the time.

[temeculaguy]

svelte, it was an analogy, not a comparison. I am warped, but that is not relevent for purposes of this discussion, using an unrelated topic to illustrate how something can be offensive to some and not to others, or offensive but neccesary, made it the perfect choice. There are only a handful of subjects that I use for analogies (wine, women, cigars, porn, sports), and of those five essential keys to happiness, it seemed the most aplicable at the time.

[temeculaguy]

svelte, it was an analogy, not a comparison. I am warped, but that is not relevent for purposes of this discussion, using an unrelated topic to illustrate how something can be offensive to some and not to others, or offensive but neccesary, made it the perfect choice. There are only a handful of subjects that I use for analogies (wine, women, cigars, porn, sports), and of those five essential keys to happiness, it seemed the most aplicable at the time.

[temeculaguy]

svelte, it was an analogy, not a comparison. I am warped, but that is not relevent for purposes of this discussion, using an unrelated topic to illustrate how something can be offensive to some and not to others, or offensive but neccesary, made it the perfect choice. There are only a handful of subjects that I use for analogies (wine, women, cigars, porn, sports), and of those five essential keys to happiness, it seemed the most aplicable at the time.

[svelte]

Man, I think it is pretty warped to compare torture to sex. Sex is between two consenting persons…torture, I’m pretty sure, isn’t.

And last I knew, our government wasn’t creating porn, but it was torturing.

I really don’t want my government creating porn or torture, personally.

Though non-govt-sponsored porn is A-OK by me. Not so with torture.

[svelte]

Man, I think it is pretty warped to compare torture to sex. Sex is between two consenting persons…torture, I’m pretty sure, isn’t.

And last I knew, our government wasn’t creating porn, but it was torturing.

I really don’t want my government creating porn or torture, personally.

Though non-govt-sponsored porn is A-OK by me. Not so with torture.

[svelte]

Man, I think it is pretty warped to compare torture to sex. Sex is between two consenting persons…torture, I’m pretty sure, isn’t.

And last I knew, our government wasn’t creating porn, but it was torturing.

I really don’t want my government creating porn or torture, personally.

Though non-govt-sponsored porn is A-OK by me. Not so with torture.

[svelte]

Man, I think it is pretty warped to compare torture to sex. Sex is between two consenting persons…torture, I’m pretty sure, isn’t.

And last I knew, our government wasn’t creating porn, but it was torturing.

I really don’t want my government creating porn or torture, personally.

Though non-govt-sponsored porn is A-OK by me. Not so with torture.

[temeculaguy]

Well, no, I don’t really care. Jack Bauer might be a fictional character but there are many things that happen in order for you to live in relative peace. If you are outraged by something that doesn’t amount to much more than fraternity hazing, then the more they hide it from you the better off you will be. I hope you never find out about what really happens in wars or intelligence gathering.

My advice, just avoid reading these stories, these things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, no sense in getting upset about it, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It’s the same advice I’d give a church going conservative woman about porn. These things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It would be much more fun to chronicle the discussion I once had with a very conservative woman who posed the question “why do men watch porn” and my rebuttal began with “are your sure that women other than youself don’t.” Yes, that would more fun and funnier but it would be even more off topic.

I read the link, Obama said he wouldn’t have any of the CIA agents prosecuted that tortured the 28 terrorists. That’s not enough of a check and balance, he is arguably the most liberal president we have had in decades and he has the liberty of reding the entire book that you can only see a few excerpts from. Is it possible that the info gleaned from those interrogations saved some city in the u.s. from an attack? Did the ends justify the means for him? Probably so. So let it go, just understand that people will get tortured, people will be killed and there are probably at least 40 sexual acts you have never heard about and don’t want to.

[temeculaguy]

Well, no, I don’t really care. Jack Bauer might be a fictional character but there are many things that happen in order for you to live in relative peace. If you are outraged by something that doesn’t amount to much more than fraternity hazing, then the more they hide it from you the better off you will be. I hope you never find out about what really happens in wars or intelligence gathering.

My advice, just avoid reading these stories, these things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, no sense in getting upset about it, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It’s the same advice I’d give a church going conservative woman about porn. These things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It would be much more fun to chronicle the discussion I once had with a very conservative woman who posed the question “why do men watch porn” and my rebuttal began with “are your sure that women other than youself don’t.” Yes, that would more fun and funnier but it would be even more off topic.

I read the link, Obama said he wouldn’t have any of the CIA agents prosecuted that tortured the 28 terrorists. That’s not enough of a check and balance, he is arguably the most liberal president we have had in decades and he has the liberty of reding the entire book that you can only see a few excerpts from. Is it possible that the info gleaned from those interrogations saved some city in the u.s. from an attack? Did the ends justify the means for him? Probably so. So let it go, just understand that people will get tortured, people will be killed and there are probably at least 40 sexual acts you have never heard about and don’t want to.

[temeculaguy]

Well, no, I don’t really care. Jack Bauer might be a fictional character but there are many things that happen in order for you to live in relative peace. If you are outraged by something that doesn’t amount to much more than fraternity hazing, then the more they hide it from you the better off you will be. I hope you never find out about what really happens in wars or intelligence gathering.

My advice, just avoid reading these stories, these things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, no sense in getting upset about it, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It’s the same advice I’d give a church going conservative woman about porn. These things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It would be much more fun to chronicle the discussion I once had with a very conservative woman who posed the question “why do men watch porn” and my rebuttal began with “are your sure that women other than youself don’t.” Yes, that would more fun and funnier but it would be even more off topic.

I read the link, Obama said he wouldn’t have any of the CIA agents prosecuted that tortured the 28 terrorists. That’s not enough of a check and balance, he is arguably the most liberal president we have had in decades and he has the liberty of reding the entire book that you can only see a few excerpts from. Is it possible that the info gleaned from those interrogations saved some city in the u.s. from an attack? Did the ends justify the means for him? Probably so. So let it go, just understand that people will get tortured, people will be killed and there are probably at least 40 sexual acts you have never heard about and don’t want to.

[temeculaguy]

Well, no, I don’t really care. Jack Bauer might be a fictional character but there are many things that happen in order for you to live in relative peace. If you are outraged by something that doesn’t amount to much more than fraternity hazing, then the more they hide it from you the better off you will be. I hope you never find out about what really happens in wars or intelligence gathering.

My advice, just avoid reading these stories, these things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, no sense in getting upset about it, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It’s the same advice I’d give a church going conservative woman about porn. These things have to happen, have always happened and always will happen, just avoid it if it bothers you.

It would be much more fun to chronicle the discussion I once had with a very conservative woman who posed the question “why do men watch porn” and my rebuttal began with “are your sure that women other than youself don’t.” Yes, that would more fun and funnier but it would be even more off topic.

I read the link, Obama said he wouldn’t have any of the CIA agents prosecuted that tortured the 28 terrorists. That’s not enough of a check and balance, he is arguably the most liberal president we have had in decades and he has the liberty of reding the entire book that you can only see a few excerpts from. Is it possible that the info gleaned from those interrogations saved some city in the u.s. from an attack? Did the ends justify the means for him? Probably so. So let it go, just understand that people will get tortured, people will be killed and there are probably at least 40 sexual acts you have never heard about and don’t want to.

[LarryTheRenter]

Torture = Being trapped on the 99th floor of the WTC confronted with a 2000 degree wall of fire and smoke and choosing to jump to your death instead of getting fried….

[KSMountain]

No beachlover, I’m not disturbed by it. Evidently these techniques were used on only 3 of the top guys we captured after 9/11. If you think about someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was someone who definitely did have a lot of information we NEEDED. Whether it’s ticking bomb scenario or something where “only” ten thousand or so people die, yeah I’m ok with a little water up the nose. In fact, I think it is our government’s JOB to do that.

I agree with Michael Hayden who today said it’s not really a good idea to let our adversaries know all the details of what we “might” do.

To CONCHO’s comment: I did read the Hitchens article, and here are my thoughts:
* If a journalist (presumably a non-tough guy) ASKS for something to be done to him a SECOND time, after just experiencing it, can it really be called torture?
* If we do it to our own soldiers in training, are we then “torturing” our own troops? Funny how we don’t hear about them suing or anything.
* When I was young, my mom used to take me to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor at a fancy place in La Jolla. He used to lean me way back backwards in the chair, and pour vast quantities of water (or something) down my nostrils. It was barbaric. It was very painful. I wanted it to stop the moment it started. I dreaded it on subsequent visits. I don’t think it ever did any good. Was I waterboarded in front of my own mom?

Here’s my take: If you call pouring water down someone’s nose “torture”, or you call making someone wear women’s underwear “torture”, then what would you call say cutting off a finger? I’m quite sure Hitchens wouldn’t have requested THAT be done to him again.

Seems to me if you’re going to call waterboarding torture then you have disenfranchised the term so much that you would need a new word for REAL torture.

[afx114]

Apparently waterboarding is so effective that we had to do it to KSM 183 times over the span of a month. So does that mean that it’s effective or useless?

[KSMountain]

A great question. You could argue that if it were ineffective, we ourselves would have tired of it and tried something else.

On the other hand, you could argue that after 183 times, KSM certainly knew that he was likely going to survive the treatment, that he was not going to drown, etc, so that it seems likely that it started losing effectiveness.

You know, think about KSM for a moment. Here’s a guy who knew for over a year of the plan to take 4 planes full of unsuspecting people, families, etc, and end their lives. He felt he had the right to do that. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he dedicated his life to facilitating that action. He was also involved in several other operations before and possibly after 9/11.

It was very reasonable after we captured him to expect that he knew of other operations being planned against the U.S. Perhaps some of those would have been even worse than 9/11. Perhaps some of those were stopped by information from one of the 183 sessions.

[KSMountain]

A great question. You could argue that if it were ineffective, we ourselves would have tired of it and tried something else.

On the other hand, you could argue that after 183 times, KSM certainly knew that he was likely going to survive the treatment, that he was not going to drown, etc, so that it seems likely that it started losing effectiveness.

You know, think about KSM for a moment. Here’s a guy who knew for over a year of the plan to take 4 planes full of unsuspecting people, families, etc, and end their lives. He felt he had the right to do that. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he dedicated his life to facilitating that action. He was also involved in several other operations before and possibly after 9/11.

It was very reasonable after we captured him to expect that he knew of other operations being planned against the U.S. Perhaps some of those would have been even worse than 9/11. Perhaps some of those were stopped by information from one of the 183 sessions.

[KSMountain]

A great question. You could argue that if it were ineffective, we ourselves would have tired of it and tried something else.

On the other hand, you could argue that after 183 times, KSM certainly knew that he was likely going to survive the treatment, that he was not going to drown, etc, so that it seems likely that it started losing effectiveness.

You know, think about KSM for a moment. Here’s a guy who knew for over a year of the plan to take 4 planes full of unsuspecting people, families, etc, and end their lives. He felt he had the right to do that. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he dedicated his life to facilitating that action. He was also involved in several other operations before and possibly after 9/11.

It was very reasonable after we captured him to expect that he knew of other operations being planned against the U.S. Perhaps some of those would have been even worse than 9/11. Perhaps some of those were stopped by information from one of the 183 sessions.

[KSMountain]

A great question. You could argue that if it were ineffective, we ourselves would have tired of it and tried something else.

On the other hand, you could argue that after 183 times, KSM certainly knew that he was likely going to survive the treatment, that he was not going to drown, etc, so that it seems likely that it started losing effectiveness.

You know, think about KSM for a moment. Here’s a guy who knew for over a year of the plan to take 4 planes full of unsuspecting people, families, etc, and end their lives. He felt he had the right to do that. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he dedicated his life to facilitating that action. He was also involved in several other operations before and possibly after 9/11.

It was very reasonable after we captured him to expect that he knew of other operations being planned against the U.S. Perhaps some of those would have been even worse than 9/11. Perhaps some of those were stopped by information from one of the 183 sessions.

[KSMountain]

A great question. You could argue that if it were ineffective, we ourselves would have tired of it and tried something else.

On the other hand, you could argue that after 183 times, KSM certainly knew that he was likely going to survive the treatment, that he was not going to drown, etc, so that it seems likely that it started losing effectiveness.

You know, think about KSM for a moment. Here’s a guy who knew for over a year of the plan to take 4 planes full of unsuspecting people, families, etc, and end their lives. He felt he had the right to do that. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he dedicated his life to facilitating that action. He was also involved in several other operations before and possibly after 9/11.

It was very reasonable after we captured him to expect that he knew of other operations being planned against the U.S. Perhaps some of those would have been even worse than 9/11. Perhaps some of those were stopped by information from one of the 183 sessions.

[afx114]

Apparently waterboarding is so effective that we had to do it to KSM 183 times over the span of a month. So does that mean that it’s effective or useless?

[afx114]

Apparently waterboarding is so effective that we had to do it to KSM 183 times over the span of a month. So does that mean that it’s effective or useless?

[afx114]

Apparently waterboarding is so effective that we had to do it to KSM 183 times over the span of a month. So does that mean that it’s effective or useless?

[afx114]

Apparently waterboarding is so effective that we had to do it to KSM 183 times over the span of a month. So does that mean that it’s effective or useless?

[KSMountain]

No beachlover, I’m not disturbed by it. Evidently these techniques were used on only 3 of the top guys we captured after 9/11. If you think about someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was someone who definitely did have a lot of information we NEEDED. Whether it’s ticking bomb scenario or something where “only” ten thousand or so people die, yeah I’m ok with a little water up the nose. In fact, I think it is our government’s JOB to do that.

I agree with Michael Hayden who today said it’s not really a good idea to let our adversaries know all the details of what we “might” do.

To CONCHO’s comment: I did read the Hitchens article, and here are my thoughts:
* If a journalist (presumably a non-tough guy) ASKS for something to be done to him a SECOND time, after just experiencing it, can it really be called torture?
* If we do it to our own soldiers in training, are we then “torturing” our own troops? Funny how we don’t hear about them suing or anything.
* When I was young, my mom used to take me to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor at a fancy place in La Jolla. He used to lean me way back backwards in the chair, and pour vast quantities of water (or something) down my nostrils. It was barbaric. It was very painful. I wanted it to stop the moment it started. I dreaded it on subsequent visits. I don’t think it ever did any good. Was I waterboarded in front of my own mom?

Here’s my take: If you call pouring water down someone’s nose “torture”, or you call making someone wear women’s underwear “torture”, then what would you call say cutting off a finger? I’m quite sure Hitchens wouldn’t have requested THAT be done to him again.

Seems to me if you’re going to call waterboarding torture then you have disenfranchised the term so much that you would need a new word for REAL torture.

[KSMountain]

No beachlover, I’m not disturbed by it. Evidently these techniques were used on only 3 of the top guys we captured after 9/11. If you think about someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was someone who definitely did have a lot of information we NEEDED. Whether it’s ticking bomb scenario or something where “only” ten thousand or so people die, yeah I’m ok with a little water up the nose. In fact, I think it is our government’s JOB to do that.

I agree with Michael Hayden who today said it’s not really a good idea to let our adversaries know all the details of what we “might” do.

To CONCHO’s comment: I did read the Hitchens article, and here are my thoughts:
* If a journalist (presumably a non-tough guy) ASKS for something to be done to him a SECOND time, after just experiencing it, can it really be called torture?
* If we do it to our own soldiers in training, are we then “torturing” our own troops? Funny how we don’t hear about them suing or anything.
* When I was young, my mom used to take me to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor at a fancy place in La Jolla. He used to lean me way back backwards in the chair, and pour vast quantities of water (or something) down my nostrils. It was barbaric. It was very painful. I wanted it to stop the moment it started. I dreaded it on subsequent visits. I don’t think it ever did any good. Was I waterboarded in front of my own mom?

Here’s my take: If you call pouring water down someone’s nose “torture”, or you call making someone wear women’s underwear “torture”, then what would you call say cutting off a finger? I’m quite sure Hitchens wouldn’t have requested THAT be done to him again.

Seems to me if you’re going to call waterboarding torture then you have disenfranchised the term so much that you would need a new word for REAL torture.

[KSMountain]

No beachlover, I’m not disturbed by it. Evidently these techniques were used on only 3 of the top guys we captured after 9/11. If you think about someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was someone who definitely did have a lot of information we NEEDED. Whether it’s ticking bomb scenario or something where “only” ten thousand or so people die, yeah I’m ok with a little water up the nose. In fact, I think it is our government’s JOB to do that.

I agree with Michael Hayden who today said it’s not really a good idea to let our adversaries know all the details of what we “might” do.

To CONCHO’s comment: I did read the Hitchens article, and here are my thoughts:
* If a journalist (presumably a non-tough guy) ASKS for something to be done to him a SECOND time, after just experiencing it, can it really be called torture?
* If we do it to our own soldiers in training, are we then “torturing” our own troops? Funny how we don’t hear about them suing or anything.
* When I was young, my mom used to take me to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor at a fancy place in La Jolla. He used to lean me way back backwards in the chair, and pour vast quantities of water (or something) down my nostrils. It was barbaric. It was very painful. I wanted it to stop the moment it started. I dreaded it on subsequent visits. I don’t think it ever did any good. Was I waterboarded in front of my own mom?

Here’s my take: If you call pouring water down someone’s nose “torture”, or you call making someone wear women’s underwear “torture”, then what would you call say cutting off a finger? I’m quite sure Hitchens wouldn’t have requested THAT be done to him again.

Seems to me if you’re going to call waterboarding torture then you have disenfranchised the term so much that you would need a new word for REAL torture.

[KSMountain]

No beachlover, I’m not disturbed by it. Evidently these techniques were used on only 3 of the top guys we captured after 9/11. If you think about someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was someone who definitely did have a lot of information we NEEDED. Whether it’s ticking bomb scenario or something where “only” ten thousand or so people die, yeah I’m ok with a little water up the nose. In fact, I think it is our government’s JOB to do that.

I agree with Michael Hayden who today said it’s not really a good idea to let our adversaries know all the details of what we “might” do.

To CONCHO’s comment: I did read the Hitchens article, and here are my thoughts:
* If a journalist (presumably a non-tough guy) ASKS for something to be done to him a SECOND time, after just experiencing it, can it really be called torture?
* If we do it to our own soldiers in training, are we then “torturing” our own troops? Funny how we don’t hear about them suing or anything.
* When I was young, my mom used to take me to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor at a fancy place in La Jolla. He used to lean me way back backwards in the chair, and pour vast quantities of water (or something) down my nostrils. It was barbaric. It was very painful. I wanted it to stop the moment it started. I dreaded it on subsequent visits. I don’t think it ever did any good. Was I waterboarded in front of my own mom?

Here’s my take: If you call pouring water down someone’s nose “torture”, or you call making someone wear women’s underwear “torture”, then what would you call say cutting off a finger? I’m quite sure Hitchens wouldn’t have requested THAT be done to him again.

Seems to me if you’re going to call waterboarding torture then you have disenfranchised the term so much that you would need a new word for REAL torture.

[LarryTheRenter]

Torture = Being trapped on the 99th floor of the WTC confronted with a 2000 degree wall of fire and smoke and choosing to jump to your death instead of getting fried….

[LarryTheRenter]

Torture = Being trapped on the 99th floor of the WTC confronted with a 2000 degree wall of fire and smoke and choosing to jump to your death instead of getting fried….

[LarryTheRenter]

Torture = Being trapped on the 99th floor of the WTC confronted with a 2000 degree wall of fire and smoke and choosing to jump to your death instead of getting fried….

[LarryTheRenter]

Torture = Being trapped on the 99th floor of the WTC confronted with a 2000 degree wall of fire and smoke and choosing to jump to your death instead of getting fried….

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.

[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.

[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).

[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.

[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.

A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.

On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[socrattt]

[quote=beachlover]

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

[/quote]

Beachlover, unfortunately in America or any other country in the world nothing is black and white. There is gray in just about everything. The thought of torturing probably didn’t occur until terrorists destroyed two sacred buildings in this country with many of our citizens.

You may want to read some laws about what is deemed legal or illegal in our government’s current actions. We may not all agree with the stimulus packages, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice. Sometimes things have to be done for a reason and neither you or I have a choice in the matter. If they work they work and if they don’t what can we do?

You might want to step outside the box for a moment and realize that playing by the rules doesn’t always work. Ask a fellow responsible American about that!

[socrattt]

[quote=beachlover]

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

[/quote]

Beachlover, unfortunately in America or any other country in the world nothing is black and white. There is gray in just about everything. The thought of torturing probably didn’t occur until terrorists destroyed two sacred buildings in this country with many of our citizens.

You may want to read some laws about what is deemed legal or illegal in our government’s current actions. We may not all agree with the stimulus packages, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice. Sometimes things have to be done for a reason and neither you or I have a choice in the matter. If they work they work and if they don’t what can we do?

You might want to step outside the box for a moment and realize that playing by the rules doesn’t always work. Ask a fellow responsible American about that!

[socrattt]

[quote=beachlover]

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

[/quote]

Beachlover, unfortunately in America or any other country in the world nothing is black and white. There is gray in just about everything. The thought of torturing probably didn’t occur until terrorists destroyed two sacred buildings in this country with many of our citizens.

You may want to read some laws about what is deemed legal or illegal in our government’s current actions. We may not all agree with the stimulus packages, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice. Sometimes things have to be done for a reason and neither you or I have a choice in the matter. If they work they work and if they don’t what can we do?

You might want to step outside the box for a moment and realize that playing by the rules doesn’t always work. Ask a fellow responsible American about that!

[socrattt]

[quote=beachlover]

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

[/quote]

Beachlover, unfortunately in America or any other country in the world nothing is black and white. There is gray in just about everything. The thought of torturing probably didn’t occur until terrorists destroyed two sacred buildings in this country with many of our citizens.

You may want to read some laws about what is deemed legal or illegal in our government’s current actions. We may not all agree with the stimulus packages, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice. Sometimes things have to be done for a reason and neither you or I have a choice in the matter. If they work they work and if they don’t what can we do?

You might want to step outside the box for a moment and realize that playing by the rules doesn’t always work. Ask a fellow responsible American about that!

[socrattt]

[quote=beachlover]

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

[/quote]

Beachlover, unfortunately in America or any other country in the world nothing is black and white. There is gray in just about everything. The thought of torturing probably didn’t occur until terrorists destroyed two sacred buildings in this country with many of our citizens.

You may want to read some laws about what is deemed legal or illegal in our government’s current actions. We may not all agree with the stimulus packages, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice. Sometimes things have to be done for a reason and neither you or I have a choice in the matter. If they work they work and if they don’t what can we do?

You might want to step outside the box for a moment and realize that playing by the rules doesn’t always work. Ask a fellow responsible American about that!

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[beachlover]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. It’s interesting reading. I’ll share my views.

The USA has condemned torture through out our history. In addition to the Geneva Convention I would suggest reading the UN Convention Against Torture that the US signed. And if you have any doubt that waterboarding is torture, trying googling ‘is waterboarding torture’ for some interesting reading.

Many have stated that these individuals, set on destroying our country and killing as many of our citizens as possible, deserve to be tortured. Frankly, I don’t think we can debate this point.

Either the US endorses and practices torture or we don’t. We either agree to stand behind the conventions we sign and endorse or we don’t. The circumstances cannot justify the ends no matter the enemy.

My view is on principle. Not if we waterboarded someone 83 times or 183 times or 1083 times. My view is… is waterboarding torture. Yes. Does it violate US and International laws that we have signed. Yes. Can it be justified because we were attacked. No.

But, that’s my opinion and this forum welcomes different thoughts.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

Ok, how about this:

I agree everyone, including the President, should have checks and balances, but on the other hand there is the need to act with rapidity (and perhaps mystery and violence) in certain unfortunate and hopefully rare circumstances.

So, how about we have a special court, like the FISA wiretap court, that could authorize “unlimited” treatment? The President could apply to this court, in certain very rare circumstances, for approval to treat a particular person in any means deemed necessary by the President. The target individual would have to be named.

The law would be written so that this could not be applied to any U.S. citizen, nor against anyone to whom the Geneva conventions apply.

The members of this court themselves would be subject to sanction (up to for example charged with homicide) if the Supreme Court found that they were discharging their duties improperly.

To further limit abuse, perhaps the members of this court could be chosen randomly from among appeals court judges, and perhaps they couldn’t serve for very long, like for say 1 year.

This would give a legal mechanism to treat some folks badly, when necessary, and to put fear into others of what might actually be doable to them.

Perhaps the court would be required to release the names of the folks so declared or perhaps the number of folks so declared each year.

You could write into the law that the President could be held liable for inappropriate declaration, and that this would not be pardonable by a subsequent President.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.

[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.

[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).

[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.

[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.

A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.

On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.

[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.

[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).

[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.

[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.

A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.

On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.

[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.

[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).

[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.

[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.

A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.

On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).
[/quote]
I’m not one either. But I think in this case the driver would be charged with a pre-existing crime – speeding. I think in the Nuremberg case the defendants were charged with crimes against humanity. Obviously there was no law on the German books that prevented/allowed their behavior – they were supposed to “know” that what they were doing was wrong. Is that same principle in effect here? When you “know” you have actual bad guys that have information, it seems a stretch to me to call it a crime against humanity. I acknowledge though that the “know you have actual bad guys” part could be abused.

[quote=afx114]
So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not?
[/quote]
Yeah you’re probably right about that.

[quote=afx114]
As far as I know torture is/was illegal.
[/quote]
I do not know the answer to that. What were the legal limits on the behavior of U.S intelligence agents then, or even now? BTW, I agree with a previous poster that Al Quaida guys are not necessarily entitled to Geneva guarantees, and they certainly don’t hold themselves to them. (You may recall KSM beheaded Danny Pearl).

[quote=afx114]
That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.
[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty. Someone (I suppose you’re saying the Obama administration) could charge the interrogators with violating their civil rights – again, are those guys even entitled to U.S. civil rights? Note: in the Abu Ghraib case the folks *were* punished – evidently the Bush/Obama administrations feel this case is different.

[quote=afx114]
If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.
[/quote]
I agree with your last part about the undesirability of unilateral extra-constitutional legislation. On the other hand, there is a balance to be struck. When you’ve had 9/11 and you’re trying to prevent 10/11, you obviously don’t have time for the legislative process to work to completion.

A tough problem. I suppose you could now have congress write a law that says no American shall commit or cause to be committed “torture” upon anyone in any circumstance and then somehow try to define torture. Apart from the difficulty of defining torture (could loud Barry Manilow be torture?) I think it’s in our interest as a nation to leave the boundaries ambiguous, but others might disagree.

On the other hand, I do not support violating the Geneva convention for those to whom it applies.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[afx114]

[quote=KSMountain]You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.[/quote]

I wasn’t comparing the crimes, I was comparing their defense. It doesn’t just apply to the Nazis, it applies to anyone whose defense is ‘I was just following orders.’

In your opinion is the Nuremberg Defense a valid defense when committing any crime? If I am a UPS driver and I get a ticket for speeding while attempting to make an on-time delivery, am I off the hook because I was ‘just doing my job?’ I think you’d be hard pressed to find any judge who would accept that as a valid argument. (I’m not a lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong).

[quote=KSMountain]The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time.[/quote]

So the AG is the one that decides what’s legal and what isn’t? I could be wrong, but wasn’t he simply advising the administration on whether he thought it was legal or not? And isn’t it the job of a judge/jury to ultimately decide the legality of it? As far as I know torture is/was illegal. That’s the whole point — why not have a proper trial, and if the administration’s lawyers can convince a judge/jury that torture was legal, then they’re off the hook. If not, they broke the law.

[quote=KSMountain]If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.[/quote]

Again, you’re operating under the assumption that torture is now (or was when they were doing it) legal. When has torture ever been legal? When Gonzalez declared it so?

I agree with you – torture is not well defined, and that makes legal arguments for and against difficult — but in this case, we had an administration declare that it was legal simply because they wanted to use it, without any regard for whether or not it was actually legal. If the administration wanted to torture — or more specifically waterboard — they should have proposed legislation to legalize it, not bend the rules to get away with something illegal. The last thing we need are our leaders unilaterally declaring laws at their will.

[quote=KSMountain]
Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder?[/quote]

No, because they acted within the legal rules of engagement. Within the law. Now, if they just went off and shot any random dude on a boat for no reason — sure, they should be tried for murder.

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[KSMountain]

[quote=afx114]
“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.
[/quote]
You’re making quite a leap (perhaps even an absurd one) when you compare the murder of millions of innocent folks with the waterboarding of 3 folks, who are still alive, who were themselves murderers of thousands.

[quote=afx114]
As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever —
In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now.”
[/quote]

Again a pretty sketchy comparison. We’re not talking about murder here. The interrogation techniques were specifically found legal by the attorney general at the time and other folks acted with that knowledge in persuance of their jobs and helping their fellow citizens. Your murder analogy is different: there is very little controversy over the definition of murder, and we’re not talking about retroactively declaring murder to be illegal.

If every citizen (let alone CIA agents) labored under the threat that whatever behavior they currently legally engage in could later be retroactively declared illegal, that would make it pretty difficult to get anything done. It’s my understanding that that kind of legal shenanigans is actually prohibited in the constitution.

Tell me this afx114: Do you think the special forces that shot the 3 pirates should be tried for murder? They didn’t waterboard anyone – no, worse, they shot 3 teenagers in the head! If not, why not? Because the captain’s life was in danger? Do you not think that the lives of many more citizens were similarly (and provably) in danger from the likes of the 3 Al Quaida guys? Is it only “legal” to take action when someone has a loaded AK-47 pointed at someone else’s head? Seems a dangerous line for a nation to try to walk. And who should define where the line lies? Folks at home on their comfy couch watching John Stewart?

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

The only procedure that I know of, that could be called torture, and works.. is sleep deprivation. It is hard to lie and keep a consistent story when you can barely focus because of sleep. I don’t see the other methods as being that effective.

PS: Maybe us working stiffs can call required heavy overtime hours to bring schedules in, as a form of torture?

[ucodegen]

The only procedure that I know of, that could be called torture, and works.. is sleep deprivation. It is hard to lie and keep a consistent story when you can barely focus because of sleep. I don’t see the other methods as being that effective.

PS: Maybe us working stiffs can call required heavy overtime hours to bring schedules in, as a form of torture?

[ucodegen]

The only procedure that I know of, that could be called torture, and works.. is sleep deprivation. It is hard to lie and keep a consistent story when you can barely focus because of sleep. I don’t see the other methods as being that effective.

PS: Maybe us working stiffs can call required heavy overtime hours to bring schedules in, as a form of torture?

[ucodegen]

The only procedure that I know of, that could be called torture, and works.. is sleep deprivation. It is hard to lie and keep a consistent story when you can barely focus because of sleep. I don’t see the other methods as being that effective.

PS: Maybe us working stiffs can call required heavy overtime hours to bring schedules in, as a form of torture?

[ucodegen]

The only procedure that I know of, that could be called torture, and works.. is sleep deprivation. It is hard to lie and keep a consistent story when you can barely focus because of sleep. I don’t see the other methods as being that effective.

PS: Maybe us working stiffs can call required heavy overtime hours to bring schedules in, as a form of torture?

[felix]

Just today it has been reported that Dick Cheney asked that the Obama administration release the complete info on the interrogation activities. His reason was to demonstrate the valuable intelligence was gathered and what this information helped prevent.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for this info to be released. The Obama administration isn’t about to produce any info that contradicts one of their main arguments, that “torture” doesn’t work or result in reliable info.

Next, the techniques used to gain this information did not fit the strict definition of torture. Torture, strictly defined is required to cause either permanent physical or psychological damage to the subject. The techniques we have and still use do not cause either.

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[felix]

[quote=afx114]I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.[/quote]

We’re still waiting for the transparency Obama promised.

As a Chicago native I’m keenly interested in transparency. I’m still waiting for whatever was said between our former Governor Blago and Obama or his surrogates like, Emmanuel, and our new Senator Burris, but no one’s talking.

I’m still waiting for Obama to produce his birth records or for Obama to let us know whatever he did traveling the world and how he managed to pay for such.

I would welcome transparency for things and many other things that don’t compromise security.

Otoh I’m not too keen on letting our enemies know what we do or don’t do to get info. Letting them know what we do only lets them prepare for such and it lets them know what we won’t do, which only takes away the psychological advantage from our interrogators.

Why you find it ironic that anyone would not want things that compromise our intelligence gathering and/or security to come out but welcomes info demonstrating how effective our info gathering is is really puzzling.

There is no irony involved at all.

[blahblahblah]

It says something about our society that we enjoy discussing torture techniques so much. What is torture, what isn’t torture, when you should torture, why you should torture, what sort of techniques are most effective, etc… It’s all over the TV, on talk radio, and even on a freaking housing bubble blog. There are unbelievably popular movies like the Saw and Hostel series that are nothing but a bunch of torture scenes stitched together. The French make movies about people cheating on their wives and we make movies about pulling each other’s eyes out. Let’s just come right out and say it:

We’re Americans and we love torture. We love thinking about it, we love talking about it, and we even occasionally enjoy doing it (but only when it’s really necessary. It isn’t a black&white world, you know!)

[felix]

[quote=CONCHO]It says something about our society that we enjoy discussing torture techniques so much. What is torture, what isn’t torture, when you should torture, why you should torture, what sort of techniques are most effective, etc… It’s all over the TV, on talk radio, and even on a freaking housing bubble blog. There are unbelievably popular movies like the Saw and Hostel series that are nothing but a bunch of torture scenes stitched together. The French make movies about people cheating on their wives and we make movies about pulling each other’s eyes out. Let’s just come right out and say it:

We’re Americans and we love torture. We love thinking about it, we love talking about it, and we even occasionally enjoy doing it (but only when it’s really necessary. It isn’t a black&white world, you know!)[/quote]

Nice straw man argument.

I suspect most Americans neither enjoy torture nor talking about it, despite the success of Saw movies. I might add that the Saw movies also make a lot of $ overseas, perhaps, those folks in France love seeing limbs amputated as much as some do here.

Much of this commotion is being raised to vilify the Bush administration without regard to the truth or how it may affect our ability to gather information. And I also suspect most folks can’t even agree on what is or isn’t torture.

As I said before, a strict definition would include only those techniques that leave lasting physical or psychological effects. I have yet to hear of anything we used fit into that category.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Felix: Where do you come down on the practice and policy of rendition/extraordinary rendition? As I’m sure you know, this practice/policy came into existence during the Clinton Administration and full fruition under Bush.

This policy has moved people into prisons throughout the world, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and even Poland.

I’m pretty clear on what constitutes torture, having seen it firsthand during my time in the Army. I also agree with your assessment, in that much of what people consider torture actually falls under acceptable interrogation techniques.

Rendition, on the other hand, gives me considerable pause, especially from a moral standpoint. I have absolutely no doubt that what happens in those “black” facilities used for rendition is torture. Having worked with our allies in Central America, I can tell you that those allies have no moral compunction about torture, rape, murder and summary execution.

So, in terms of that proverbial slippery slope, where does the line blur, or vanish completely? I’m not asking because I know, but because I don’t. I’m curious as to your take.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Felix: Where do you come down on the practice and policy of rendition/extraordinary rendition? As I’m sure you know, this practice/policy came into existence during the Clinton Administration and full fruition under Bush.

This policy has moved people into prisons throughout the world, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and even Poland.

I’m pretty clear on what constitutes torture, having seen it firsthand during my time in the Army. I also agree with your assessment, in that much of what people consider torture actually falls under acceptable interrogation techniques.

Rendition, on the other hand, gives me considerable pause, especially from a moral standpoint. I have absolutely no doubt that what happens in those “black” facilities used for rendition is torture. Having worked with our allies in Central America, I can tell you that those allies have no moral compunction about torture, rape, murder and summary execution.

So, in terms of that proverbial slippery slope, where does the line blur, or vanish completely? I’m not asking because I know, but because I don’t. I’m curious as to your take.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Felix: Where do you come down on the practice and policy of rendition/extraordinary rendition? As I’m sure you know, this practice/policy came into existence during the Clinton Administration and full fruition under Bush.

This policy has moved people into prisons throughout the world, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and even Poland.

I’m pretty clear on what constitutes torture, having seen it firsthand during my time in the Army. I also agree with your assessment, in that much of what people consider torture actually falls under acceptable interrogation techniques.

Rendition, on the other hand, gives me considerable pause, especially from a moral standpoint. I have absolutely no doubt that what happens in those “black” facilities used for rendition is torture. Having worked with our allies in Central America, I can tell you that those allies have no moral compunction about torture, rape, murder and summary execution.

So, in terms of that proverbial slippery slope, where does the line blur, or vanish completely? I’m not asking because I know, but because I don’t. I’m curious as to your take.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Felix: Where do you come down on the practice and policy of rendition/extraordinary rendition? As I’m sure you know, this practice/policy came into existence during the Clinton Administration and full fruition under Bush.

This policy has moved people into prisons throughout the world, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and even Poland.

I’m pretty clear on what constitutes torture, having seen it firsthand during my time in the Army. I also agree with your assessment, in that much of what people consider torture actually falls under acceptable interrogation techniques.

Rendition, on the other hand, gives me considerable pause, especially from a moral standpoint. I have absolutely no doubt that what happens in those “black” facilities used for rendition is torture. Having worked with our allies in Central America, I can tell you that those allies have no moral compunction about torture, rape, murder and summary execution.

So, in terms of that proverbial slippery slope, where does the line blur, or vanish completely? I’m not asking because I know, but because I don’t. I’m curious as to your take.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Felix: Where do you come down on the practice and policy of rendition/extraordinary rendition? As I’m sure you know, this practice/policy came into existence during the Clinton Administration and full fruition under Bush.

This policy has moved people into prisons throughout the world, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and even Poland.

I’m pretty clear on what constitutes torture, having seen it firsthand during my time in the Army. I also agree with your assessment, in that much of what people consider torture actually falls under acceptable interrogation techniques.

Rendition, on the other hand, gives me considerable pause, especially from a moral standpoint. I have absolutely no doubt that what happens in those “black” facilities used for rendition is torture. Having worked with our allies in Central America, I can tell you that those allies have no moral compunction about torture, rape, murder and summary execution.

So, in terms of that proverbial slippery slope, where does the line blur, or vanish completely? I’m not asking because I know, but because I don’t. I’m curious as to your take.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Delete: Duplicate post.

[blahblahblah]

Nice straw man argument.

Actually it’s not a straw man argument. A straw man argument would be something akin to “You’re saying that we should be able to torture anyone anytime we like, but clearly if we do that then we’re completely evil!” A straw man involves taking someone’s position, distorting it, and then refuting it, which I did not do. Actually, I wasn’t even taking sides with my post.

I was merely pointing out that we really seem to enjoy discussing and thinking about torture based on how much TV and radio airtime is devoted to it, how many newspaper column inches are about it, how many blog posts are about it, and how many popular films have torture scenes. Even James Bond films have torture scenes now! It used to be that the villain would just set James up to snuff him on some elaborate device but now he must torture him first. On “24”, Jack Bauer is constantly having to torture people. Even on a great show like “Lost” we’ve got Sayid and his history as an Iraqi torturer.

And yes of course the “Saw” movies do well overseas, so people all around the world are just as sick as we are. Of course the movies themselves are actually made here. India has the biggest movie industry outside of the US (maybe even bigger), but their movies seem to be mostly love stories with lots of song and dance numbers and goofy moustachioed villains. Only the US, for some reason, seems to produce this disturbing torture pornography. What does this say about us?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”? Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnography

I think Americans do tend to fetishize violence, and we tend to be a very warlike and violent culture. We’ve been a gun culture since our existence and we’ve not hesitated, as a nation, to enforce our will through violence or military action.

Our most iconic films, the westerns, tend to glorify the violent, final ending of a problem with gun play (which usually involves a dastardly and cowardly villain), while simultaneously downplaying the actual violence. It wasn’t until Sam Peckinpah arrived on the scene that we actually started seeing blood and gore on the screen.

Now it seems like we revel in it. I watched the last “Rambo” film, in which Stallone goes to town with a mounted .50cal and was actually horrified at how realistic the depiction of the damage was. The “Saw” films you mentioned, as well as the two “Hostel” films are also good examples. These movies aren’t horror movies, in the conventional sense of the word (i.e. they’re not really trying to scare you at all), rather they’re porno for violence and gore junkies.

Of course, if you want to militarize a culture, then you need to inure the young to violence.

[scaredyclassic]

we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.

we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.

we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.

we’re nuts!

“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>

>

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.

we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.

we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.

we’re nuts!

“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>

> [/quote]

A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.

There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.

Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.

[luchabee]

Interesting discussion, all of it.

However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:

(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.

(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.

(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.

These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[luchabee]

Interesting discussion, all of it.

However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:

(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.

(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.

(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.

These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.

[luchabee]

Interesting discussion, all of it.

However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:

(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.

(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.

(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.

These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.