64 Senators Support Torture

[Ramo]

Suffering from ads?

We are not signatories to any treaty that forces us to do anything with al Qaeda.

We are signatories to the Convention Against Torture.

And for the last time, we don't know that these people who we're torturing are affiliated to al-Qaeda. In particular, Rasul was certainly not.

Congress has pass a number of laws that curtail the CinC's powers. They have no power pass these laws under the constitution, and it makes no difference if some idiot president signed them.

Thanks, you keep saying this, but that don't make it true. There's no legal evidence that the CinC can do whatever the **** he wants, in defiance to Congress' will, just because he claims that it has something to do with some war. We live in a society with rule of law, not tyranny of the retarded.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Now Molly is not known to be a friend of the United States, but he has jumped from Abu Gharaib to medieval torture in its most gruesome visage. Now I fully expect the Americans here of the leftist persuasion to jump to the defence of ...

Molly

and not

America.

Which shows you the problem with the America left.

Not a 'friend' of the United States?

Is there a club I've missed out on joining, where you suspend judgment in favour of some screwed up ends justifies the means view of the world?


Sorry to burst that bubble of delusion Ned, but right wing Republicanism and an aversion to adhering to international treaties does not constitute all of the United States.

At least, not yet anyway.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
Sorry, can't really consider humiliation in the same league as torture.

" However, every country had special customs as to the manner of applying torture. "


And of course, every country has equivocators, who say, 'it's not torture, it's fun!', or 'it's not torture, it's just 'humiliation'.

Lewis Carroll must be spinning in his grave.

[Ned]

Ramo, Undoubtedly you have read "the memo." It shows that the CAT is not self-executing, but is implemented by 18 USC Section 2340. The memo includes a whole section about the president's powers as commander-in-chief, including the power to interrogate enemy combatants. Congress cannot in any way regulate the president's power as CinC.

The Supremes in the recent Gitmo case was careful to distinguish between enemy combatants captured and interrogated as a part of the war effort from the decision to continue to hold them when information they had was no longer critical to the war. When they are mere "prisoners" held in US territory, they obtain at least the right of habeas corpus.

The best conclusion, therefor, is that 2340 begins to apply when the prisoner is merely being detained and his information is no longer critical. Then the president's powers as CinC no longer directly apply.

Now, as to what constitutes "torture," the memo desribes court decisions from Europe that seem to included the specific situation depicted in the "photo." The European court, in Ireland v. UK, specifically held that such techniques were not torture. See below.

I assume you approve of the European view, as it is from a court outside the US and is not therefor pro-Bush.

As to Brit citizens captured on the battlefield, WTF were they doing there even if they were not close associates of OBL?

[Mr. Harley]

Haven't been on the thread for a few days, been busy - way to go people. My turn. First - to Starchild - as Ted had made obvious, and I've stated in other threads - many, many US citizens are opposed to this. Not enough, and many of us find this shameful, but we are powerless to do anything about it. We are a Republic, and due to the steady concentration of power in the executive (yes, Berzerker, you've told us so) the Democratic foundations have been sadly eroded.

Ned, first you are highlighting one section of one memo. Do I need to post both in their entirety? Besides the obvious subversion of the foundations of US jurisprudence - which in part was in response to the use of, dare I say it, TORTURE. Self-incrimination? You know, that funny right we have against that. GUESS WHY? A cigar! Yes, Ned, it was in response to torture being used to wring confessions from individuals. Now look at what happened to those Brits who were in Afghanistan that ended up in Gitmo. You're weaseling, Ned, and justifying the utter perversion of one of the founding principles of our country.

Second, the entire thing on Habeus Corpus and detentions in Gitmo. There was this really liberal judge on the US Supreme Court who ruled them flatout illegal, unlike the waffling of the other seven. No, I'm not talking Stevens, who joined him in his dissent, I'm talking Scalia. You know, that guy the right claims is a strict constitutionalist, and holds up more than any other justice as a right-thinking conservative judge.

"Oh, but that's different," I can just hear it now. The other seven judges can join the honor role of the SCOTUS judges who permitted the detention of US BORN citizens who had Japanese immigrant parents. I just hope you non-US posters look at the ratios of opinions on Ned's side, and realize that there are many Americans who are angry, ashamed, and dejected over the actions taken by this administration.

[Ned]

B, Shawn, I read the memo. It is just that there a legal definition of torture that is being developed here. That is all the memo is about.

The part I quoted was intended to show what was NOT torture. Now the pictures displayed here were very consistent with the European legal conclusion of what is NOT torture. So, although a US court is yet to rule on the subject, the Europeans have already concluded in their own case, Ireland v. UK, that what was depicted in the photo was NOT torture.

Now, if you continue to say that what we are doing is torture, I would like you to point to a case, from Europe, that supports your view.

[Sava]

Now, if you continue to say that what we are doing is torture, I would like you to point to a case, from Europe, that supports your view.

Let me put it this way Ned... if you were mistakenly arrested by the cops and had this **** done to you, you'd think it was torture.

And as a supporter of this administration, you have no moral ground with which to stand on.

[Ned]

Sava, clearly the picture shows abusive treatment. If this were done with no urgent necessity to extract information, I would agree that it was cruel and UNNECESSARY punishment, and the perpetrators should be punished.

Now, let's examine the facts as we know them.

The Abu Gharaib non coms who did this are being prosecuted.

QED.

[Sava]

The Abu Gharaib non coms who did this are being prosecuted.

Oh sure, the guys who took the photos of the naked arab pyramids are being "prosecuted"... but torture is a part of US policy... especially at Gitmo... In Time, Newsweek... even Maxim magazine had a story on the "interrogation techniques" used against detainees... they include:

sleep deprivation
loud, crying babies being blasted on loudspeakers 24 hours a day
angry, barking attack dogs
water torture
"stress" positions

and that's just the tip of the iceberg... who else knows what goes on behind those closed doors. It's sickening, and the actions of our government in the name of "democracy" and spreading "freedom" are beyond dispicable. It's morally repugnant.

And you should be ashamed of yourself, because all you do is defend these actions. And you sit there on your goddamned high horse and call people like me "unAmerican" because we object to torture.

**** that ****

[Ramo]

Ramo, Undoubtedly you have read "the memo." It shows that the CAT is not self-executing, but is implemented by 18 USC Section 2340. The memo includes a whole section about the president's powers as commander-in-chief, including the power to interrogate enemy combatants. Congress cannot in any way regulate the president's power as CinC.

Bald assertions are not proof.

The Supremes in the recent Gitmo case was careful to distinguish between enemy combatants captured and interrogated as a part of the war effort from the decision to continue to hold them when information they had was no longer critical to the war. When they are mere "prisoners" held in US territory, they obtain at least the right of habeas corpus.

The best conclusion, therefor, is that 2340 begins to apply when the prisoner is merely being detained and his information is no longer critical. Then the president's powers as CinC no longer directly apply.

It's a totally different issue. The federal anti-torture statute has nothing to do with habeas corpus. Indefinite detention is not the same thing as torture. You're skirting the issue at hand, what Gonzales advocates is that the President is above the law, can defy a restriction specifically passed by Congress. That he can do whatever atrocious thing that he wants, including torturing innocent people.

Seriously Ned, this is pathetic legal reasoning. Do you honestly believe what you're writing? You can't possibly be a lawyer and believe that garbage.

Now, as to what constitutes "torture," the memo desribes court decisions from Europe that seem to included the specific situation depicted in the "photo." The European court, in Ireland v. UK, specifically held that such techniques were not torture. See below.

I assume you approve of the European view, as it is from a court outside the US and is not therefor pro-Bush.

Unlike yourself, I don't make kneejerk reactions on a policy based on who supports it.

As to Brit citizens captured on the battlefield, WTF were they doing there even if they were not close associates of OBL?

First off, how do you know they were captured on a battlefield? Secondly, the article mentions what they were doing; they were humanitarian workers. Actually tending to the welfare of the Afghani people, rather then rounding them up and torturing 'em, crazy concept eh?

[Ramo]

Sava, clearly the picture shows abusive treatment. If this were done with no urgent necessity to extract information, I would agree that it was cruel and UNNECESSARY punishment, and the perpetrators should be punished.

Now, let's examine the facts as we know them.

The Abu Gharaib non coms who did this are being prosecuted.

Yes, let's examine the facts. Rasul's interrogators and countless others who have conducted torture in places like Gitmo (or ship detainees off to somewhere worse) have not been prosecuted, and likely never will be. Even worse, the situation is not being addressed, and probably won't be for another four years.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Oh sure, the guys who took the photos of the naked arab pyramids are being "prosecuted"... but torture is a part of US policy... especially at Gitmo... In Time, Newsweek... even Maxim magazine had a story on the "interrogation techniques" used against detainees... they include:

sleep deprivation
loud, crying babies being blasted on loudspeakers 24 hours a day
angry, barking attack dogs
water torture
"stress" positions

and that's just the tip of the iceberg... who else knows what goes on behind those closed doors. It's sickening, and the actions of our government in the name of "democracy" and spreading "freedom" are beyond dispicable. It's morally repugnant.

And you should be ashamed of yourself, because all you do is defend these actions. And you sit there on your goddamned high horse and call people like me "unAmerican" because we object to torture.

**** that ****

Sava, courts, European and Israeli, have already ruled that such acts are NOT torture. They may legitimately be used to extract information. Try reading the extract from the memo I posted in a previous post, a few posts up. It is from Ireland v. UK. There is a lot more on this in the memo itself near the cited portion.

Now, while these techniques may be used to extract information, they may not be used as a form of punishment.

[Ned]

Ramo, I urge you to read the memo on Congress's power to control the president as CinC. They have none. The Supremes have said so in cases. So, in effect, the president is "above the law" when he is acting in his capacity as CinC.

So, the president, if he thought necessary, could order enemy combatants summarily shot or worse if he deemed it necessary in the conduct of the war. No one could prosecute the president in the US for any such acts. No one.

Neither could anyone arrest and prosecute anyone carrying out the orders of the president in this area.

Back to the Brits, well they were freed were they not? I assume the reason they were in Gitmo had something to do with the manner of their arrest. I must admit, though, that if they were "clearly" aid workers, their original arrest was wrong. But this then raises the question as to whether they were "clearly" aid workers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

Sava, clearly the picture shows abusive treatment. If this were done with no urgent necessity to extract information, I would agree that it was cruel and UNNECESSARY punishment, and the perpetrators should be punished.

Now, let's examine the facts as we know them.

The Abu Gharaib non coms who did this are being prosecuted.

Yes, let's examine the facts. Rasul's interrogators and countless others who have conducted torture in places like Gitmo (or ship detainees off to somewhere worse) have not been prosecuted, and likely never will be. Even worse, the situation is not being addressed, and probably won't be for another four years.

Stop it, Ramo. Can't you see there is a difference between extracting information on the orders of the president and abuse by wild, out-of-control, non coms?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Stop it, Ramo. Can't you see there is a difference between extracting information on the orders of the president and abuse by wild, out-of-control, non coms?

Torture is torture.