"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[Aeson]

Even if you allow that it's reasonable to torture someone in such an extreme circumstance...

The problem is you can't be sure there is even anything to torture them for. If you knew, you wouldn't need to torture them for that information. You'd have proof.. the bomb is there... see?

You don't know if you're torturing the right person. If you knew, you wouldn't need to torture them. You'd have proof, they just planted the bomb over there.. see?

You don't know if you're going to get the necessary information through torture. He just said the bomb is in a stairwell on 53rd street. It'll take a couple minutes to get a bomb squad there. If it's not there... it'll be too late... so do we keep torturing? If you know what he has to say, which justifying the torture requires, you don't need to torture for the information.

You don't even know if there will be anything you can do about it even if you got the right guy and the right method to make him talk. Yah, he tells you were the bomb is, it's going off right now...

All you know is that you are torturing someone. That's a given. Everything else is guessing, and torturing someone on a guess isn't justifiable.

Once it's allowed in one situation, who's to say what exactly fits that situation... the person wanting to torture you? It's time critical, so only the person ready and willing to do the job could make the call. Doesn't seem like a very smart power to give to a sadist. To properly have it checked, you'd need a court order, and that would take more time than the scenario would allow for. If there's more time, you don't need to torture.

So it comes back down to torturing someone or not. Forget the scenarios, it's a moral thing. People who feel they have the right to inflict pain and suffering on others are the problem, and torturing them only makes you part of the problem too.

[Bosh]

here's an interesting comment from a Libertarian blog:

The Fish Rots FROM the Head, but the Whole Fish Rots - What is the real import of yesterday's "torture memo" story, in which, to quote from Phil Carter's Intel Dump,

An extremely learned reader of mine wrote to remind me that the U.S. Constitution isn't the only authority which rejects the idea of executive to set aside the law. This idea goes back even further, to the British legal tradition. Ironically, the power now claimed by the Defense Department (and by extension, the White House) was rejected for the King in the late 17th Century.

Partly it's that we've gone straight past "Unamerican" to "Un-constitutional monarchy." So much for the notion of "benevolent hegemony" as conducing to national virtue.

But the big thing is this: President Bush is absolutely responsible for everything that happens in his administration, and to the extent that the Pentagon memo conditioned policy, he is first in line for blame. HOWEVER. President Bush is no one's idea of a legal mind. He may have initiated the project that became the memo, but he didn't draft the thing. High-level government lawyers, most of them undoubtedly political appointees, did that. What that means is that there is systemic corruption in the Republican Party as an institution - "Bush's Willing Torturers" we might call them. These are people that came up with the idea that the Constitutional phrase "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" meant

authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

They represent a deadly danger to the American system and they are multiple. It's not one guy somewhere, it's a movement. Until the Republican Party roots them out, that Party is the enemy, not just of libertarians, but of anyone who values individual freedom and republican government. From the standpoint of liberty, there can no longer be any justification for preferring the Republicans to the Democrats.

UPDATE: To clarify, this isn't just another Unqualified Offerings anti-torture item. The issue now goes beyond torture to the very structure of American government. Torture is the symptom. The concept that the President is not just himself above the law, but a supralegal authority, is the malady.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I did.

I thought you were joking.

Discovering that a terrorism suspect is contaminated with isotopes that could be used to make a dirty bomb does not mean you can follow a trail to it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest


You're postulating an extremely unlikely situation. However, in the unlikely event that (1) we know a catastrophic even is impending and (2) we capture someone we know can inform us about it and (3) the information can help us prevent it, then I would support breaking international law to prevent the catastrophe. I'd be willing to make the call and take the responsibility.

Now, will you admit that your question has practically nothing to do with torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us?

Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death.

Without detention and questioning how do we seperate the innocent civilians from the 'freedom fighters' who plant explosive devices in public areas almost every day?

Obviously it would be wrong to torture to death innocent civilians and those responsible should be tried for genocide and executed if found guilty.

My question is relevant for this reason, their are no rationale definitions for torture. People seem to be pretending that psychological torture has a less profound effect on the victim than physical torture, and that is simply not the case. Even in a relatively short amount of time men have been reduced to nothing more than vegetables that can no longer control their bodily functions years after psychological torture. So either you accept that torture can be warranted or you dont. If you accept that the use of torture might be necessary, then we are only quibbling over details.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Without detention and questioning how do we seperate the innocent civilians from the 'freedom fighters' who plant explosive devices in public areas almost every day?

I don't know, and from the tone of your post you don't know either, so you cannot justify torture upon any of these people.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it is easy SpencerH

someone (hopefully) would break the law, torture the dude, than pay for it (with jail time or the DP or something of that sort)

there are lots of people willing to give their lives to save millions

still doesn't change the fact that torture should stay illegal (and is always wrong), even when it is the best option

Jon Miller

Exactly,

And that is essentially how it works in the democratic western countries. If you get caught, you are likely to pay the price. Using MP's in Iraq to take part in these interrogations should never have occured. What gets to me is the two-faced bull**** from both political parties pretending that their hands are clean. Merde!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Gibsie

I don't know, and from the tone of your post you don't know either, so you cannot justify torture upon any of these people.

I'm not suggesting we emulate Saddam Hussein. Again, it comes back to a definition of torture. Simply locking someone in jail could be considered torture. Trying to get an answer from GePap certainly is.

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death.

I'm sure you'll find a way to quibble with me semantically, but in the context of acknowledged torture, I consider these articles to provide credible evidence that the US military has tortured to death several Iraqi prisoners. Quibble away.

In addition, this link http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...x=5&submit.y=4 links to another article in the NYT about an American who was playing the role of an uncooperative Iraqi under interrogation, and American soldiers who didn't realize he was American or role-playing beat him until he suffered brain damage and had to be discharged. (I'm not at home so I can't readily access the link to the story itself.) It's not a case of "torturing to death," but I guess it's pretty relevant.

http://afr.com/articles/2004/05/05/1083635164242.html

(Australian Financial Times)

"25 deaths in custody in Iraq, Afghanistan
May 05 07:03

"Criminal investigations have been launched into 35 cases of alleged abuse in military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan since December, including 25 deaths in custody, a senior army official said.

"Major General Donald Ryder, the army's chief law enforcement officer, said the deaths included two alleged homicides of inmates by soldiers, the killing of an inmate attempting to escape, and 10 other deaths that were still under investigation. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3684381.stm (BBC News)

"US army probes deaths in custody

"The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In two cases the dead men were found to have been murdered by Americans, according to a US army official. "

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635207631.html?oneclick=true

"US admits 25 deaths in custody"

"The Pentagon has admitted that 25 prisoners have died in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least two of them murders. Ten of the deaths are still under investigation, including one involving the CIA.

"The admissions came from General George Casey, who briefed Congress on the widening scandal over Abu Ghraib jail, where prisoners were sexually humiliated, abused and beaten as military police guards videotaped and photographed the scenes. "

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Discovering that a terrorism suspect is contaminated with isotopes that could be used to make a dirty bomb does not mean you can follow a trail to it.

Start from where he was found.

If the suspect's got radioactive isotopes all over his body it is reasonable to assume that he was not particularly careful. If he was not careful it stands to reason that he left a trail.

[Dis]

just when you think the Bush administration couldn't get any more despicable. This comes out.

What next?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Exactly,

And that is essentially how it works in the democratic western countries. If you get caught, you are likely to pay the price. Using MP's in Iraq to take part in these interrogations should never have occured. What gets to me is the two-faced bull**** from both political parties pretending that their hands are clean. Merde!

But you're arguing that in a thread where the administration is reserving the right to torture to itself.

Doesn't that give you pause?

[notyoueither]

And how then can you wonder how those MPs came to do what they did?

[notyoueither]

What signals, or orders, did they receive?

Why did the administration decide that they should piss away the little credit that your nation still possesses for the sake of humiliating and perhaps torturing people who they had to kick because there was no reason to hold them in the first place (quite unlike a 'known' terrorist with isotope on his clothes found red handed in the US).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest


I'm sure you'll find a way to quibble with me semantically, but in the context of acknowledged torture, I consider these articles to provide credible evidence that the US military has tortured to death several Iraqi prisoners. Quibble away.

I hardly ever quibble semantically

In addition, this link http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...x=5&submit.y=4 links to another article in the NYT about an American who was playing the role of an uncooperative Iraqi under interrogation, and American soldiers who didn't realize he was American or role-playing beat him until he suffered brain damage and had to be discharged. (I'm not at home so I can't readily access the link to the story itself.) It's not a case of "torturing to death," but I guess it's pretty relevant.

It may come as a shock to you but soldiers are injured (and sometimes killed) in training every day. I guess you've never taken part in prison or crowd control exercises but I can assure you that they are violent. In my experience, they are usually akin to a semi-controlled gang war. While you're not supposed to use a club on someones head (its bad for PR) those rules go out the window when you get punched in the mouth. Maybe thats what happened here since he was playing the role of an 'uncooperative detainee'? He may have overdone it and paid the price.

"US admits 25 deaths in custody"

"The Pentagon has admitted that 25 prisoners have died in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least two of them murders. Ten of the deaths are still under investigation, including one involving the CIA.

"The admissions came from General George Casey, who briefed Congress on the widening scandal over Abu Ghraib jail, where prisoners were sexually humiliated, abused and beaten as military police guards videotaped and photographed the scenes. "

The number now is 37

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/22/iraq.abuse.ap/

Of those, 9 are being investigated as possible homicides.

So is it likely that Iraqi's have died while being tortured (some may use the euphamism of 'during questioning", I dont bother) ?

Probably yes.

Is that the same as,

"torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us? "

No.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither


But you're arguing that in a thread where the administration is reserving the right to torture to itself.

Doesn't that give you pause?

Thats not what I see at all.

Put it in context, we are fighting an unconventional war against terrorists and guerrilla's who are not covered by the Geneva convention. In order to fight that war we must have information. Therefore, suspects must be questioned and that involves torture (of some type).

Eventually this becomes common knowledge and the governmant opponents start using this as a political club against the administration.

All that has happened here in these memos, is that a bunch of lawyers have commented on the legality of torture i.e. they have tried to codify the rules. The administration is trying to cover its ass in what is a no win situation. Politically they have to protect themselves from the two-faced bull**** from Kennedy and Biden while knowing that such repugnant behaviour (i.e. the torture) is necessary.