[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
At the same time, Americans rightfully expect to be protected from attack. But there is no free lunch. Coercive interrogations have been key in preventing post-9/11 attacks on American soil. .[/i]
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Christino said it had prevented no attacks.
[/quote]
Apparently Messrs. Rivkin and Casey beg to differ.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
At the same time, Americans rightfully expect to be protected from attack. But there is no free lunch. Coercive interrogations have been key in preventing post-9/11 attacks on American soil. .[/i]
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Christino said it had prevented no attacks.
Apparently Messrs. Rivkin and Casey beg to differ.[/quote]
They are basically declaring that torture cannot happen unless the torturer intends torture.
It is up to him if he intends to do any lasting damage so if he just wants to sadistically play around he is just a sick asshole but not a torturer.
Arguably the Spanish Inquisition did not torture then, they fought to save the “well, not victim” eternal soul.
Those two fuckers are legalistic, word playing assholes, the moral scum at the bottom of the legal professions, devoid of any moral compass, that will rape words till they have lost any meaning.
Fuck them, fuck this administration and double fuck any soulless ghoul that carries out such orders.
They are basically declaring that if you are going to have categories of things that are prohibited and categories of things that are allowed, the activities that fall into each need to be clearly defined and delineated.
In other words, it doesn’t do any good to denounce “torture” when no one agrees with the definition. One of the key points of the article is that there are going to be laws, they need to be clear.
This is the case with criminal laws – you don’t want people to be subject to penalties for actions that aren’t clearly illegal. This is why, in the U.S., criminal laws can be ruled “void for vagueness” and unConstitutional.
Just because the restrictions on coercive interrogations would apply to individual actors who are backed by governmental authority does not mean the restrictions should not be clear - legal penalties should still be justly applied to interrogators guilty of torture, provided there is a clear definition of what is prohibited.
That is the response to the “overly legal” aspect of your comment. T
he other piece of the puzzle is: What sorts of coercive interrogation techniques should be allowed and what should be defined as torture?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
At the same time, Americans rightfully expect to be protected from attack. But there is no free lunch. Coercive interrogations have been key in preventing post-9/11 attacks on American soil. .[/i]
100meters wrote:
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Christino said it had prevented no attacks.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Apparently Messrs. Rivkin and Casey beg to differ.
orion wrote:
They are basically declaring that torture cannot happen unless the torturer intends torture.
It is up to him if he intends to do any lasting damage so if he just wants to sadistically play around he is just a sick asshole but not a torturer.
Arguably the Spanish Inquisition did not torture then, they fought to save the “well, not victim” eternal soul.
Those two fuckers are legalistic, word playing assholes, the moral scum at the bottom of the legal professions, devoid of any moral compass, that will rape words till they have lost any meaning.
Fuck them, fuck this administration and double fuck any soulless ghoul that carries out such orders.
They are basically declaring that if you are going to have categories of things that are prohibited and categories of things that are allowed, the activities that fall into each need to be clearly defined and delineated.
In other words, it doesn’t do any good to denounce “torture” when no one agrees with the definition. One of the key points of the article is that there are going to be laws, they need to be clear.
This is the case with criminal laws – you don’t want people to be subject to penalties for actions that aren’t clearly illegal. This is why, in the U.S., criminal laws can be ruled “void for vagueness” and unConstitutional.
Just because the restrictions on coercive interrogations would apply to individual actors who are backed by governmental authority does not mean the restrictions should not be clear - legal penalties should still be justly applied to interrogators guilty of torture, provided there is a clear definition of what is prohibited.
That is the response to the “overly legal” aspect of your comment. T
he other piece of the puzzle is: What sorts of coercive interrogation techniques should be allowed and what should be defined as torture?[/quote]
Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
plus
Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed “cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment”). However, “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is independently proscribed by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on sensory deprivation.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
So, seems to me you not only not torture but also not be cruel, inhuman or degrading.
[quote]orion wrote:
Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
plus
Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed “cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment”). However, “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is independently proscribed by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on sensory deprivation.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
So, seems to me you not only not torture but also not be cruel, inhuman or degrading.
[/quote]
I’m fairly certain the U.S. isn’t a signatory to any international treaty prohibiting “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment or punishment, but let me know if I’m incorrect.
Also from the wikipedia entry you cited:
[i]Recent history
The European Convention on Human Rights (signed by the participating member states of the Council of Europe) recognized that the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights it was ruled makes such actions the lesser offense of “inhuman or degrading treatment”[2]. The European Court of Human Rights ruling that sensory deprivations and beatings do not rise to the level of torture is the present relevant law in Europe.[3]
Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that “… nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”[4] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[5] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[6][7][/i]
You have to love the “The ticking time bomb argument is stupid” comments. Actually, that is exactly the kind of scenario this particular enemy aims to realize. Maybe in the US, maybe in Spain, maybe in Somalia, maybe in Germany, maybe in the Philippines, maybe in Pakistan, maybe in Iraq, maybe in Afghanistan, maybe in Lebanon, etc., etc,. etc.
Have you folks been paying attention? Those “silly ticking time bomb scenarios” are deliberately killing civilians around the world in the name of Jihad. They don’t fight a conventional war. No, they act specifically through carrying out such “ticking time bomb” operations.
Fine, argue against water-boarding, but ridiculing the “ticking time bomb” argument is ignorant. It’s certainly not silly when such a scenario becomes reality in a plane, market place, school, hotel, etc. It’s not silly when the Death Squads show up at your door. That’s right, it’s not just domestic threats that are being averted.
[quote]100meters wrote:
I want our troops to not be tortured if captured.
[/quote]
Our troops will be mutilated. Afterwards, they will be brutally murdered, and the act will be presented to an internet audience. Regardless of water-boarding. This isn’t tit for tat. Mutilation and decapitation is the standard practice of the enemy. There will be no liberating “our boys” after the war. You either find that missing soldier damn near immediately, or he’s dead.
Now, if you happen to get a hold of a member of the kidnap squad, maybe you can find him. But, the Jihadi is laughing at you, telling you that he’ll never sell out his brothers in Allah, and you’re infidel pig-brother will die by the hand of his holy brethren. Oh well, put him in a clean cell. Oh, and make sure he gets recreation, 8 hours of sleep, full medical care, etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There will be no liberating “our boys” after the war. You either find that missing soldier damn near immediately, or he’s dead. [/quote]
I don’t get your point. Why would you not expect “your boys” to be shot at by the indigenous population of Iraq? Al-Qaeda is present in Iraq alright, but their numbers are nowhere near those of the resistance. To add insult to injury, your invasion is responsible for the influx of Al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
Civilization’s a bitch, ey?
As long as you think in terms of war, your judgement will be blurred. Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
There will be no liberating “our boys” after the war. You either find that missing soldier damn near immediately, or he’s dead.
I don’t get your point. Why would you not expect “your boys” to be shot at by the indigenous population of Iraq? Al-Qaeda is present in Iraq alright, but their numbers are nowhere near those of the resistance. To add insult to injury, your invasion is responsible for the influx of Al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
Now, if you happen to get a hold of a member of the kidnap squad, maybe you can find him. But, the Jihadi is laughing at you, telling you that he’ll never sell out his brothers in Allah, and you’re infidel pig-brother will die by the hand of his holy brethren. Oh well, put him in a clean cell. Oh, and make sure he gets recreation, 8 hours of sleep, full medical care, etc.
Civilization’s a bitch, ey?
As long as you think in terms of war, your judgement will be blurred. Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.[/quote]
It’s almost like you’re responding to someone else. I have no idea how anything you’ve said, pertains to the points I’ve raised. I’m not talking about “our boys” getting shot at. Reread…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
There will be no liberating “our boys” after the war. You either find that missing soldier damn near immediately, or he’s dead.
I don’t get your point. Why would you not expect “your boys” to be shot at by the indigenous population of Iraq? Al-Qaeda is present in Iraq alright, but their numbers are nowhere near those of the resistance. To add insult to injury, your invasion is responsible for the influx of Al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
Now, if you happen to get a hold of a member of the kidnap squad, maybe you can find him. But, the Jihadi is laughing at you, telling you that he’ll never sell out his brothers in Allah, and you’re infidel pig-brother will die by the hand of his holy brethren. Oh well, put him in a clean cell. Oh, and make sure he gets recreation, 8 hours of sleep, full medical care, etc.
Civilization’s a bitch, ey?
As long as you think in terms of war, your judgement will be blurred. Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.[/quote]
Always good to hear from the enemy. You validate what we think without even realizing it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.[/quote]
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
The question they ask is this: “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”
Never Justified: 29%
Rarely Justified: 25%
Sometimes Justified: 31%
Often Justified: 12%
Unsure: 3%
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You have to love the “The ticking time bomb argument is stupid” comments. Actually, that is exactly the kind of scenario this particular enemy aims to realize. Maybe in the US, maybe in Spain, maybe in Somalia, maybe in Germany, maybe in the Philippines, maybe in Pakistan, maybe in Iraq, maybe in Afghanistan, maybe in Lebanon, etc., etc,. etc.
Have you folks been paying attention? Those “silly ticking time bomb scenarios” are deliberately killing civilians around the world in the name of Jihad. They don’t fight a conventional war. No, they act specifically through carrying out such “ticking time bomb” operations.
Fine, argue against water-boarding, but ridiculing the “ticking time bomb” argument is ignorant. It’s certainly not silly when such a scenario becomes reality in a plane, market place, school, hotel, etc. It’s not silly when the Death Squads show up at your door. That’s right, it’s not just domestic threats that are being averted.
[/quote]
Thrower don’t worry about ticking. Modern bombs don’t tick…they vibrate. Most of the time it’s an electric electric razor. But every once in a while…it’s a dildo.
mike
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
I want our troops to not be tortured if captured.
Our troops will be mutilated. Afterwards, they will be brutally murdered, and the act will be presented to an internet audience. Regardless of water-boarding. This isn’t tit for tat. Mutilation and decapitation is the standard practice of the enemy. There will be no liberating “our boys” after the war. You either find that missing soldier damn near immediately, or he’s dead.
Now, if you happen to get a hold of a member of the kidnap squad, maybe you can find him. But, the Jihadi is laughing at you, telling you that he’ll never sell out his brothers in Allah, and you’re infidel pig-brother will die by the hand of his holy brethren. Oh well, put him in a clean cell. Oh, and make sure he gets recreation, 8 hours of sleep, full medical care, etc.
[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
…Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
The question they ask is this: “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”
Never Justified: 29%
Rarely Justified: 25%
Sometimes Justified: 31%
Often Justified: 12%
Unsure: 3%[/quote]
Since the toughest techniques are rarely used it seems the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with our policies. It is a shame they don’t know it because of the type of reporting that is done.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You have to love the “The ticking time bomb argument is stupid” comments. Actually, that is exactly the kind of scenario this particular enemy aims to realize. Maybe in the US, maybe in Spain, maybe in Somalia, maybe in Germany, maybe in the Philippines, maybe in Pakistan, maybe in Iraq, maybe in Afghanistan, maybe in Lebanon, etc., etc,. etc.
Have you folks been paying attention? Those “silly ticking time bomb scenarios” are deliberately killing civilians around the world in the name of Jihad. They don’t fight a conventional war. No, they act specifically through carrying out such “ticking time bomb” operations.
Fine, argue against water-boarding, but ridiculing the “ticking time bomb” argument is ignorant. It’s certainly not silly when such a scenario becomes reality in a plane, market place, school, hotel, etc. It’s not silly when the Death Squads show up at your door. That’s right, it’s not just domestic threats that are being averted.
[/quote]
If that happens, someone WILL torture and the president will pardon him.
That is very far away from institutionalised torture.
You already have rules for that one in a million case.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Always good to hear from the enemy. You validate what we think without even realizing it.
[/quote]
No, everything validates what you think because you frame it that way.
Go long enough down that road and nothing will be able to stop you but a bullet, because you will no longer be able to question yourself AND live with the blood on your hands.
[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
Always good to hear from the enemy. You validate what we think without even realizing it.
No, everything validates what you think because you frame it that way.
Go long enough down that road and nothing will be able to stop you but a bullet, because you will no longer be able to question yourself AND live with the blood on your hands.
[/quote]
A moral relativist preaching morality and threatening violence…how silly.
[quote]orion wrote:
If that happens, someone WILL torture and the president will pardon him.
That is very far away from institutionalised torture.
You already have rules for that one in a million case.
[/quote]
This is a cop out answer. You’re basically saying “well, someone will torture him, without being given permission, and then we can can save our missing soldier. We’ll just throw in a pardon after we get our man back.” You’re advocating a coward’s approach.
Look at this case:
Back in 2003, we were against torture and court marshalled people who were accused of doing it.
"Hearing starts on accusations against senior military officer
Tue, 18 Nov 2003
(Tikrit, Iraq-AP) – A U-S military court in Iraq has opened a hearing into allegations against a senior American officer.
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West is accused of manhandling and threatening to kill an Iraqi detainee during questioning in August.
West allegedly fired his gun near the man to get information on an alleged plot to kill him.
He’s also accused of threatening to kill the detainee if he did not talk.
The hearing is taking place at a U-S military base in Saddam Hussein’s northern hometown of Tikrit. It will determine whether West should face court-martial.
An early probe alleges his actions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. West’s lawyer says West will testify tomorrow in his own defense.
He’s the most senior officer of the Fourth Infantry Division to face such a proceeding."
Never checked to see outcome of this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
…Just out of curiosity, are there any US polls out there that deal with torture? i’m fairly certain your viewpoint would be in the minority.
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
The question they ask is this: “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”
Never Justified: 29%
Rarely Justified: 25%
Sometimes Justified: 31%
Often Justified: 12%
Unsure: 3%
[/quote]
Yes, if it was reported more frequently how little torture has helped us(it hasn’t helped at all), and in fact hinders us, probably the never justified numbers would be much higher.