Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Shadowfax
Participant[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?
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
-
AuthorPosts
