DescentBB

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard34.html

If you are an American citizen (and voter) then you should be very very worried. You're sitting in a time-bomb, and Bush now has the absolute right to order torture on any person he so desires to be tortured. Congress has approved this.

If you have family members in the military, posted overseas, their chances of surviving being captured just went down to almost zero. If they survive, they will no doubt be tortured in the most vile ways - but probably no worse than foreign detainees being tortured directly under the orders of the President, on a person by person basis.

Make no mistake: you have a war criminal, as defined by the Geneva Convention, as a Commander In Chief and Head of State.

Truly, this is the most cowardly and despicable act any supposedly democratic government has pulled in many many years. You should be ashamed to be an American, and ashamed to be a part of what used to be a semi-decent democracy. No supposed democracy (Which the USA has demonstrated that it is not) can call itself \"decent\" when it permits its president to torture prisoners.

I simply do not believe that the American people can accept the powers that congress have given Dubya, nor can I believe that you will allow the Republican party to maintain its grip on both houses.

Don't let them get away with it: write your congressman and tell them to hang their heads in shame. Truly this is not just a dark day for the USA, but a dark day for the rest of the world too.

Please just don't say you don't care.

Well, that was a balanced and level-headed discussion of the issues involved.


Thanks for the link, Mobius!!

Mobius wrote:...Bush now has the absolute right to order torture on any person he so desires to be tortured. Congress has approved this....

Try quoting the actual law that is being passed instead of this obviously biased review you linked and then check the acuracy of your assertion please!
He does have the authority to order some pretty rough interogation techniques on people who meet certain criteria but carte blanche, send them off to the tower dungeon on a whim style like you describe...I don't think so.
It does make some good election cycle rhetoric though, expect to hear more of this for at least a month and a half

well its a damn good thing you dont live in the U.S. ins't it Mobi. so you dont need to worry about this effecting you.

the article wrote:And the deal will prevent anyone – including Bush administration officials – from being held liable for the torture.

well... liable to the USA government yeah. He can probabaly be prosecuted under international law, but of course no-one will open that can-of-worms. Let friendly super-powerful dictators lie

maybe some sanctions? Too bad China's kinda a dick too.

Will, the law only keeps \"grave breaches\" of the Geneva Conventions punishable by law. That leaves A LOT of gray area. It's pretty disgusting, America was the reason behind the Geneva Conventions. We hated the way our soldiers were treated by the Japanese so we sought an international consensus that rules needed to be set, even in war. We are no better than those cutting heads off, who knows what they are doing in those CIA prisons, who knows for sure? Nobody, what will it take for you people to see that?

And furthermore, torture has been proven to be ineffective as an interrogation method. Victims will say anything to stop the pain. Didn't Bush use that one Iraqi's confessions as his intel basis for a lot of issues? And they all turned out to be wrong? Yes he did.

Colin Powell was / is right. America has lost the moral high ground in this so called war on terror. This obviously doesn't matter to any of you but one day it might bite us all in the azz.

Will Robinson wrote:He does have the authority to order some pretty rough interogation techniques on people who meet certain criteria [...]

That's enough, I'd say. No one should be subject to any "rough
interogation techniques" regardless of what criteria they meet.

And by the way, don't you think lawyers will be able to interpret
the criteria such that just about anyone meets them? ("He's
suspected to be involved in terrorism! Interrogate!")

Zuruck wrote:who knows what they are doing in those CIA prisons, who knows for sure? Nobody, what will it take for you people to see that?

that sure is a HUGE assumption isnt it???

FACT: We know the terrorists be-head, gouge out eyes, cut off limbs, and drag their prisoners to death behind vehicle. just to mention a few things they do.

you are assuming with out any proof that the CIA tortures our prisoners. yes Abu Grab was a discrace, but as far as we know it was also an abboration.

as far as torture not working, there are just as many reports and studies that state that it does work. so there is no way to prove either way. I would prefer to take the chance that it does work. "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one"

the Geneva convention applies to uniformed military combatants. it does not apply to spies or sabatours, which is what terrorists are. they wear no uniform. they have no alliegence to any nation. they're whole purpose is to target and kill innocent people to acheive their goals.

CUDA wrote:"the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one"

Whoopsy! Guess we can just torture anyone, as long as it's "for the public good"...?

The Lion wrote:

CUDA wrote:"the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one"

Whoopsy! Guess we can just torture anyone, as long as it's "for the public good"...?

First off, the information attained from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lead to stopping real attacks and he was waterboarded during the questioning that broke him and he started giving information so I don't care how many time a captive gives bad intel, sometimes they give good intel and a thousand waterboarded Jihadi's is worth it to me to track down 999 bad leads and one good lead that saves at least one american life.

Second, I think Bush deserves a little credit for standing up and saying up front he will do these things instead of letting the CIA do it then blame the CIA if the word gets out that those things were done. we have seen recently just how far some presidents will go to blame everything on someone else! I'm glad the guy in there now is both, willing to act in spite of the political reprecussions, and, man enough to take it on his own shoulders up front instead of hiding behind the skirts of his attorney general (Waco) or blaming the CIA or FBI for his own decisions and lack of action.

Now, on to the Jihadi's civil rights movement.

From Chapter 1, Part 1, Article 3:
(an excerpt of some illegal acts as they are defined by the conventions)
\"(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 judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. \"

Bush specifically asked for this part that I put in bold to be defined further so that an american soldier couldn't be charged with a war crime just for disrespecting The Prophet Muhammed (a real asswipe in my opinion) in the course of his duties of dodging feces, urine and semen being thrown at him by the prisoners while he tries to provide them with food and shelter and prayer rugs and medical treatment and Korans and recreational equipment and TV's and good seats to the ball game and...ooops! I guess they don't get to go to the games...yet...but you get the point I'm sure.

If the democrats can't even get over their oppose-Bush-at-any-cost-because-we-have-nothing-else-to-offer condition long enough to at least provide that small modicum of consideration for their own troops then I say piss on all of them and the Jihadi's too because this proves they don't really care about our troops they just want something to demagogue and posture with for their ignorant voters!

Just do what's right and let the voters sort 'em out!
That's seems to be Bush's new attitude and I think america will reward him for it.
Much of the politicalization of the War on Terror has become the most embarrasing moment in the democrats history. They just haven't been told yet but I'll bet this November they get a little wake up call.

Will Robinson wrote: and good seats to the ball game and...ooops! I guess they don't get to go to the games...yet...

Actually they had a prisoner that lost his leg during a shootout with U.S. troops. seems the Great Satan provided this man with a prostetic leg so he could join in the soccer games that the detainees get to play at Gitmo

Will, that's NOT what they defined. They made it clear that \"torture\" is to only be defined as rape, murder, or mutilation. And what you are saying is that it's ok to torture everyone as long as you get your apple in the end? What about the innocent Americans that were put to death in our \"justice\" system, is that ok because the system succeeds in putting to death some of the guilty ones?

Cuda, do you think you're above those that cut heads off? Aren't you supposed to be Christian? Do you even know what that means anymore?

Will, that's not Bush's attitude. It's fack America I'm done in two years anyways.

Zuruck wrote:Cuda, do you think you're above those that cut heads off? Aren't you supposed to be Christian? Do you even know what that means anymore?

Never said I was above them, but the Idea that by us doing "torture" to the Gitmo detainees will bring more harm to our troops is naieve and assanine at best.

also I am a Christian, and your the LAST person on this BB that should be telling me what that means. since you really have NO idea what is to be one, not to mention that you expound the same attitudes towards Christians as the radical Muslims do.

Zuruck wrote:Will, that's NOT what they defined.

It is one of things that he asked them to define and for a good reason. I was pointing out that they can't even get off the campaign wagon long enough to exercise a little common sense!
If they really cared about the potential for our troops to be targets for torture they would also be concerned about our troops being targets for war crimes tribunals for merely disrespecting Muhammed(the asswipe)....

As far as the rest of the bill, I haven't read it but since I think waterboarding is totally acceptable to do to a beligernt combatant caught out of uniform or a known mastermind of mass murder thought to be plotting another attack I'll refrain from wasting your time on that.

* as an act of war, 9/11s prime objective was to draw the US into armed conflict
* the US is now at war and facing a decentralised enemy
* the nature of decentralised warfare makes intelligence gathering crucial
* this means torture is inevitable
* failure by the CIC to realise this would be deriliction of duty

nice sum-up contact.

Will Robinson wrote:since I think waterboarding is totally acceptable to do to a beligernt combatant caught out of uniform or a known mastermind of mass murder thought to be plotting another attack I'll refrain from wasting your time on that.

The problem is that they don't always correctly identify the bad guys.

That's a very big \"if\" Kilarin. The solution is that they *have* correctly identified numerous bad guys, and have stopped more attacks on U.S. soil than you and I will ever know. How many innocents does it take to catch one terrorist? I don't know, but it took 3,000 innocent deaths to verify the fact that we need to do something about it.

(soapbox)
Straight up, I don't feel sorry for terrorists. If they have no respect for human life, then I have no respect for them. I don't feel bad about our country doing whatever it takes to protect innocents. I don't hate the U.S.A. which gave me the freedom to pursue life, prosperity, and happiness. I don't hate myself for wanting to protect innocent lives at any cost, because if you willingly allow somebody to murder hundreds of people, you are indirectly responsible for their deaths, and should be held accountable as much as the person who pulled the pin on the bomb.
(/soapbox)

FunkyStickman wrote:How many innocents does it take to catch one terrorist?

So you are saying that you don't CARE if innocents are tortured, as long as we catch the terrorists?

Take, for example, the story of Maher Arar
If the Commisions findings are correct, and the victim is to be believed, he was a completely innocent man. But, due to a series of goof ups, the Canadian government told the US that he was trouble. The US arrested him, then sent him to Syria so he could be tortured for information.

I don't have much sympathy for terrorists, but governments DO make mistakes. If we are willing to torture innocents in the hopes of catching our enemies, how are we different from the terrorists?

Don't expect an answer to that question Kilarin. I asked the same thing and it was avoided.

Will, waterboarding is NOT the only thing they're doing. Why don't you look up how many people have died in these prisons that we know about? Then guess how many have died in the prisons that we don't know about. You're trusting the government of this country, which has shown to be completely inept at everything, to make the right choices at who to torture??

Umm... can I ask? How many succesful large terrorist attacks are there per year, on average?
Then, would anyone know how many people would be behind each terrorist attack?

Zuruck wrote:Don't expect an answer to that question Kilarin. I asked the same thing and it was avoided.

Will, waterboarding is NOT the only thing they're doing. Why don't you look up how many people have died in these prisons that we know about? Then guess how many have died in the prisons that we don't know about. You're trusting the government of this country, which has shown to be completely inept at everything, to make the right choices at who to torture??

I'll answer that question. I do care if innocents are tortured... but I'd rather see an innocent man tortured than several hundred innocent people die. If you don't agree, then let's hope you're not on a plane when it gets highjacked, mmmkay? I'll go so far as to say if you stand in between me and somebody about to commit an act of terrorism, I'd probably take you out too. I don't plan on dying because some freak decided he could get virgins in heaven for it.

Once someone has decided to be party to these kinds of behaviors, they have given up their rights to be treated as an innocent. i.e. if you knew about it and didn't try to stop it, you are just as guilty. It's called being an accomplice to murder.

What if you knew somebody was going to kill your family? What if they knew about the plot, but weren't directly involved... would you be justified in torturing him to save a dozen people's lives? Just how valuable IS a human life to you? Would you let someone suicide bomb a market, only so you could say "Well, at least I didn't pull the trigger!" It's a cop-out, at best.

All these arguments are made on the assumption that "If we don't torture them for information, and we play nice, then they'll leave us alone" which is a total load of feces. If they knew every time they tried, they'd get caught or killed, they're redirect their Jihad energies elsewhere. And I'm perfectly aware the government's not perfect, heaven forbid, I know better. But there are many people in the military whom I do trust, and I know enough to believe they're doing what they think is necesary to protect innocents in our own country. If they torture, or God forbid even kill someone, they at least are trying to protect innocents. Jihadists cannot say the same thing.

It is not okay to kill innocent people. When given the choice of saving one or a hundred innocents, I would choose the hundred. It would be the only honorable thing to do.

FunkyStickman wrote:Once someone has decided to be party to these kinds of behaviors, they have given up their rights to be treated as an innocent.

But we aren't talking about people who are "party" to these kinds of behaviors. We are talking about people who are swept up purely by accident or misunderstanding.

FunkyStickman wrote:What if you knew somebody was going to kill your family?

Lets make this analogy correctly. What if you are certain your next door neighbor is going to kill your family, would you be justified in tying him up and torturing him to find out who his accomplices are? So far the answer seems easy, but what if, after it's all over, you find out you were wrong, he didn't know anything, he wasn't part of any plot, you got the wrong guy. Your answer still seems to be that as long as your intent was to save lives, your action was justified.

Now lets take it the rest of the way. The story happens the other way around. The next door neighbor becomes convinced that your son was involved in a plot to kill his family. Your son ends up tied up in his basement and tortured for several days. Oops, sorry, mistake.

Do the ethics of this change in any way when the government is involved? I don't really think so. The government makes mistakes. If the Maher Arar story is on the up and up, they grabbed a guy who had NOTHING to do with terrorism and sent him to a foreign country to be tortured.

It could have been you, or your son, or your grandfather.

Oh well, at least their intentions were pure, right?

Kilarin wrote:But we aren't talking about people who are "party" to these kinds of behaviors. We are talking about people who are swept up purely by accident or misunderstanding.

Actually, yes, we are. The percentage of innocents as compared to actual perps is *very* small. If you're going to shut down an entire intelligence program because of the possibility (however small) that somebody might be falsely accused, then you don't understand how the military gathers intelligence, and the procedures they go through to validate a contact before they apprehend them. It's not like they just go out and randomly gather people to question.

Kilarin wrote: Lets make this analogy correctly. What if you are certain your next door neighbor is going to kill your family, would you be justified in tying him up and torturing him to find out who his accomplices are? So far the answer seems easy, but what if, after it's all over, you find out you were wrong, he didn't know anything, he wasn't part of any plot, you got the wrong guy. Your answer still seems to be that as long as your intent was to save lives, your action was justified.

Now lets take it the rest of the way. The story happens the other way around. The next door neighbor becomes convinced that your son was involved in a plot to kill his family. Your son ends up tied up in his basement and tortured for several days. Oops, sorry, mistake.

Actually, to make the situation more realistic, it would be like your neighbor bragging that he wanted to kill your entire neighborhood, and also being known to hang out with other convicted murderers, and watching shipments of C-4 arrive at their house. Under those circumstances, if somebody didn't at least call the authorities, I would be shocked. If somebody had that kind of info on my own child, I would expect an investigation as well.

The difference is proof and justifiable cause. If you have a suspicion that somebody will hurt someone, that's one thing. The military doesn't act on anything without proof, straight up, plain and simple. In the rare case they do get bad intel, they usually can figure it out by correlating facts, and seeing if what the person says lines up with what they know.

Kilarin wrote:Oh well, at least their intentions were pure, right?

Again, another cop-out. I said nothing about intentions. I said if you have to make a choice between losing a few lives or losing many, even if it means innocent lives, you have no choice. The military rarely acts on something if it's not 100%. Yes, mistakes are made. Even with a success rate of 99%, I guess you'll always have that 1% who shows up on Oprah griping about how the entire U.S. government is evil. I can't say I wouldn't do that too, but I am mature enough to look at the entire scenario and know that the military is doing the best job they can under the limitations they're forced to work with.

You're basically trying to make a case out of the exception, not the norm. I suppose if you get one ticket, they should revoke your driver's licencse forever? Does that mean you don't know how to drive? Ludicrous.

If you're going to shut down an entire intelligence program because of the possibility (however small) that somebody might be falsely accused, then you don't understand how the military gathers intelligence

Not asking that the military quit interrogating subjects, just that we not torture them.

The difference is proof and justifiable cause.
...The military doesn't act on anything without proof, straight up, plain and simple.

You are, uhm, VERY trusting. Do you think they had sufficient proof to send Maher Arar overseas to be tortured?

Kilarin wrote: Not asking that the military quit interrogating subjects, just that we not torture them.

Finally someone is smart! How about that, don't saw off their nuts with a rusty blade, and capture and interrogate people with other methods, as torture is ineffective?

Kilarin wrote:Not asking that the military quit interrogating subjects, just that we not torture them.

The U.S. military is not allowed to torture people like Maher Arar describes. If they do, they are court-martialed. You're confusing the U.S. military with something entirely different. The description he gives never mentions the U.S. military, only the FBI and NYPD once, and they were acting upon information recieved from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

You are, uhm, VERY trusting. Do you think they had sufficient proof to send Maher Arar overseas to be tortured?

I'm trusting of the people who protect my country, yes. We have the best trained military force in the history of mankind. The police, well, not so much. But how do you know they didn't have some sort of connection? How do you know Maher Arar is telling the truth? You're very trusting as well, if it fits your opinion. Honestly, I feel sorry for him if he was innocent, but it doesn't change anything. If they sent him back to Syria, he's still lucky to be alive. Innocent Americans get beheaded on television by Al-Qeida there. He's only a Syrian citizen who bailed the country for not serving military time.

Is it sad? If it's true, yes. Does it change the fact that we should protect ourselves? No. Again, you can't make a case from an exception.

FunkyStickman wrote:How do you know Maher Arar is telling the truth?

I don't, and you'll note I've been very careful to state "IF" his story is true.

But whether or not this actual case is confirmed, it's still a situation that is BOUND to come up. Especially in a "war" like this one. That's one reason I don't approve of "waterboarding" or similar techniques.