Bush proudly signs anti-torture law... Posted: 2 years ago by Galoot
...but (you know there's a "but").
The definition of "torture" is subject to change at Bush's whim. Indefinite imprisonment of poorly defined "unlawful combatants" is allowed. Habeas corpus is suspended for detainees. Coerced testimony at trial is A-OK. Interrogators who may have engaged in torture are retroactively immunized.
Witch-burning not specifically mentioned, but that's probably okay, too.
Comments: 10 Score: [-] 32 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 2 years ago by Bornbad:
careful@work
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by 2manyusernames:
Here we go again...
1st of all it is not "torture". It is interrogation. There are differences. Some of the interrogation methods are harsh, but they need to be.
The use of the word "torture" is simply a way to manipulate people's opinion, similar to the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" instead of anti- and pro- abortion
The problem is the way the liberals wanted it, we couldn't even embarrass them, humiliate them, or show them disrespect.
Read that again. Thing about what that means. That means that making a prisoner blush would be a worse crime than blowing up an elementary school.
Remember even lap dances were labeled torture due to a disrespect of the prisoners religion.
No one is advocating the methods that spring to mind when you think "torture". Such methods do not work for substained intel. They can be effective if you need one piece of info and you need it now, but even then it doesn't always work.
Yes, physical torture will get people to say anything they think you want them to hear.
Psychological interogation methods, do work. These have been proven time and time and time again.
The way the previous rules were written we were stuck with asking "please", "pretty please" for the hard-nosed terrorist, and for those really evil ones that murdered innocent civilians we could use "pretty please with sugar on top". Using "Please, I'll be your best friend" was ruled illegal as it is a falsehood.
Heck even the old standby "good cop, bad cop" was not allowed. Think if the police were forced to obey these rules. They would have a conviction rate of .004% The rules as previously written put some 16 year old shoplifter as a worse criminal than the people would plot another 9/11. At least it allowed for harsher treatment of the 16 year old vs the terrorist.
That is what is wanted and that is what we now have. The right to question the terrorist, okay, the terrorist suspect with a harder hand than simply getting on our knees and pleading.
Again, I am not saying that we should use physical torture, I am simply saying that being able to psychologically manipulate the prisoner in giving up information is required and is not an evil thing. It is done to criminals all the time.
I challenge you, Galoot or any of the other people who think this law is wrong to think about the situation. Galoot, if your daughter was kidnapped and they caught the guy but he won't say where she is locked up at, would you advocate more than asking the kidnapper? Would you think it was okay to ask nicely? Would you think it would be okay to embarras the prisoner? Perhaps more than embarrass?
It is the same thing. The fact that one is a kidnapper and one is a religious fanatic makes no difference. His fanactism just means that using psychological methods are even more of a necessity as you won't get any feelings of guilt out of the fanatic.
The idea of giving them all the rights of a court case is silly. These are not some people who are suspected of robbing a gas station. These are combatants. Did prisoners of previous wars get court cases? Do you seriously think that for every prisoner we take, the people on the front line should be taken back to the US for the trial. Do you really advocate giving the terrorist-suspect all the information you have, documentation, secrets, etc just as you have to do in a criminal trial? (can't remember the term where one side has to divulge their info to the other side)
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by iceburg:
To me, it's not so much the interrogation methods, but the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that is the really scary part.
I am not saying that we should go easy on terror suspects, it just seams like quite a slippery slope.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by noahsatellite:
2manyusernames wrote: "1st of all it is not "torture". It is interrogation."
Unfortunately.
When you have someone with knowledge of pending terrorist attacks (read: murders of as many possible innocent civillians as possible) his physical and mental wellbeing takes a backseat to the prevention of those murders -- period! Though this law is a start to better rules, I do not see why torture should not be allowed for high-profile detainees if we have any reason to believe that they know something they aren't telling us.
Not to draw any sort of equivalency, but if you have ever seen the way these people who are being "interrogated" killed our military men or American civilians they kidnapped or other muslims who spoke a bit too freely (eg cutting off heads with a dull knife -- slice by slice as you can hear the victim screaming, pulling people for miles behind trucks, decapitating them and then setting their body ablaze) you know that THEY don't mind torturing others.
Inaction is, in itself, a type of action. I'm not saying everybody should be tortured, but if we have reason to believe that this guy has info on terrorist attacks and we refuse to use EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE to obtain it, I think that puts a small piece of our collective hand in the subsequent murders that occur.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by noahsatellite:
iceburg : To me, it's not so much the interrogation methods, but the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that is the really scary part.
I am not saying that we should go easy on terror suspects, it just seams like quite a slippery slope.
What habeas corpus? We're talking about guerilla fighters engaged in war with us, not proper citizens. They are not being federal nor state prisoners, but prisoners of war -- there's a big difference.
When the military enters a house with materials for building IEDs, we round up everyone inside. The innocent guy eating supper at the "guilty" party's house is NOT innocent -- and that's about as innocent as anyone captured is gonna get. Most of those captured tried to cause harm to others.
The US Constitution states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The current situation certainly falls under one of those two exceptions.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by iceburg:
noahsatellite :
When the military enters a house with materials for building IEDs, we round up everyone inside. The innocent guy eating supper at the "guilty" party's house is NOT innocent -- and that's about as innocent as anyone captured is gonna get. Most of those captured tried to cause harm to others.
Okay, so in your example, what is the guy eating dinner at the bomb maker's house guilty of? I agree that he probably is guilty of something, but who knows exactly what. The whole basis of our justice system is that it is law enforcement's duty to prove guilt, not a defendant's to prove innocence.
Yes yes, I know that foreign nationals are not guaranteed the same rights as citizens. That is how it has always been, and I am not arguing that point.
If we could guarantee that these measures would only be used against those who are absolutely intending to do our nation harm, then I would be all for it. The problem is that nobody in the government is omniscient (allthough some seem to think they are), so we never can be 100% sure that these measures are aplied properly. Basically laws like this are based on the assumption of infallable judgement and integrity on the part of the enforcers. I think that a rudimentary anlaysis of the last few thousand years of history can tell us that such is not the case.
In my mind, the real question is if we do not maintain the moral high ground, then what are we fighting for anyway?
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Matoogs:
Wow 2MU, agreed and there's no way I could have said it that well.
Remind me to message you whenever I want to make a point. $20 for writing my arguement, $50 if you don't agree with what I'm saying ;)
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Galoot:
How does holding the government accountable for its actions, demanding clear definitions, keeping the onus on us to prove someone's guilt rather than on them to "prove their innocence" (if they're even given the chance to do that much), and generally refusing to lower one's self to the level of one's enemies make anyone a "liberal?"
More important, why would anyone argue against any of the above?
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Hoosker:
Galoot : How does holding the government accountable for its actions, demanding clear definitions, keeping the onus on us to prove someone's guilt rather than on them to "prove their innocence" (if they're even given the chance to do that much), and generally refusing to lower one's self to the level of one's enemies make anyone a "liberal?"
More important, why would anyone argue against any of the above?
I'm not going to answer for 2many if this question was being asked to him, He does an amazing job on his own, but I would like to say that your question/response is a clever debating tactic designed to make it seam that anyone not agreeing with the article is for torturing innocent people, for the government taking away right and freedoms of innocent people, lowering oneself to the enemy, no government responsibility...etc.
Galoot, the Column and Columnist are liberal, as liberal as Michelle Maulkin is Conservative. I'm neither.
2many did, in my opinion, ask a great question though.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by noahsatellite:
Galoot : How does holding the government accountable for its actions, demanding clear definitions, keeping the onus on us to prove someone's guilt rather than on them to "prove their innocence" (if they're even given the chance to do that much), and generally refusing to lower one's self to the level of one's enemies make anyone a "liberal?"
More important, why would anyone argue against any of the above?
In general? Because it takes a known situation -- ie that there are militant combatants who are trying to kill each and every one of us -- and draws some sort of comparison between that and any of those issues you mentioned. Truth is there is no comparison.
More specific?
1) "holding the government accountable for its actions"
that's very broad... what do you mean by that? what has the govt done wrong? sure the govt should be accountable for its actions, but the accountability depends on the prism through which you interpret its actions
2) "keeping the onus on us to prove someone's guilt rather than on them to "prove their innocence""
While I don't disagree on principle, I think there's a lot more at stake here. We got lots of prisoners and more each day and are still fighting a war. It takes time to question each one of them, determine if they have any information critical to the mission/war, and then try them. When you walk onto enemy soil you assume everyone's guilty because otherwise you're going to die! Hopefully not too many innocent people are inconvenienced by this but I would rather innocent people inconvenienced than innocent people killed.
3) "generally refusing to lower one's self to the level of one's enemies"
Until we start going around targeting innocent civilians for mass murder, we have not stooped to their level. How are we lowering ourselves at all? The world has a certain order -- you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's great to say we should get all the guilty people and let all the innocent people go but the technical details that go into all that are great? Is the death of innocent civilians no worse than the detainment of same?
This reminds me of the argument against airport security that people have when they are questioned: "I felt degraded". Well I'm sorry, but you look like other people who want to kill us! Would you rather be embarrassed or dead? (or alternatively would you rather be embarrassed or others dead?) I have been stopped and questioned a few times in my life. And when all was well and good I would usually recieve an apology. I have always said to them there's no need to apologize -- I'm glad someone cares enough to come over and QUESTION ME (I got nothing to hide)!
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 >