[KSMountain]

[quote=gandalf]1. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
[/quote]
It was applied to 3 people – if that makes a program it was a pretty small program. Again I completely disagree with you and feel it was their actual *job* to try to get the maximum info from those 3 guys. Let’s see, there were 20 conspirators for 9/11 in the U.S. (that we know of). How many more? We need to know. What do you suggest: say “pretty please”?

[quote=gandalf]2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t.
[/quote]
I’m not an expert on the efficacy of torture. But I know we *knew* those 3 guys knew a LOT. Think of their positions in the organization.

[quote=gandalf]4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
[/quote]
Uh, proof please? Got some data? Let’s see, 9/11 happened before any torture. The Bali bombing, Cole bombing. World Trade Center bombing #1 – all before. The Spain bombing and London bombing and Shoe bomber may have happened before too. Get it? Those things were *already* happening. Going further: do you think the Taliban and Pakistan NWFP really care about what’s going on in Cuba? I seriously doubt it. They want to shape their region so that women don’t go to school, or drive, or talk to men not their husband and men don’t shave their beards, and no one listens to any music. Seriously. They are plenty self-motivated without any recruitment posters. I call B.S. on that. Also your second part where you say we got “dubious tactical gains”, again, proof please? Neither of us know, but you may recall we broke up a cell in Portland, we didn’t have the 10 airliners go down, we broke up the plot on all the tunnels in N.Y. – and those are just the things we were told about.

[KSMountain]

[quote=gandalf]1. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
[/quote]
It was applied to 3 people – if that makes a program it was a pretty small program. Again I completely disagree with you and feel it was their actual *job* to try to get the maximum info from those 3 guys. Let’s see, there were 20 conspirators for 9/11 in the U.S. (that we know of). How many more? We need to know. What do you suggest: say “pretty please”?

[quote=gandalf]2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t.
[/quote]
I’m not an expert on the efficacy of torture. But I know we *knew* those 3 guys knew a LOT. Think of their positions in the organization.

[quote=gandalf]4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
[/quote]
Uh, proof please? Got some data? Let’s see, 9/11 happened before any torture. The Bali bombing, Cole bombing. World Trade Center bombing #1 – all before. The Spain bombing and London bombing and Shoe bomber may have happened before too. Get it? Those things were *already* happening. Going further: do you think the Taliban and Pakistan NWFP really care about what’s going on in Cuba? I seriously doubt it. They want to shape their region so that women don’t go to school, or drive, or talk to men not their husband and men don’t shave their beards, and no one listens to any music. Seriously. They are plenty self-motivated without any recruitment posters. I call B.S. on that. Also your second part where you say we got “dubious tactical gains”, again, proof please? Neither of us know, but you may recall we broke up a cell in Portland, we didn’t have the 10 airliners go down, we broke up the plot on all the tunnels in N.Y. – and those are just the things we were told about.

[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”.

[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]

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]

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.

[Author]

Posts