64 Senators Support Torture

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Torture is torture.

To the left, anything the US does to prisoners is torture. As Ramo said, he would apply the Bill of Rights to enemy combatants, giving them due process, trial by jury and the whole nine yards.

Why?

Could it be that the left want to hamstring the US military?

[Sava]

Ned...

let's review your arguments... and I paraphrase:

"it's not torture because courts in Israel and Europe say it's not"
"it's okay to torture for information, but not punishment"
"the left wants to hamstring the US military"

[Ramo]

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.

In which of the court cases did SCOTUS say that the President is above the law in war time?

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.

Thought experiment:
You're an aid worker in Afghanistan. President picks you up as an enemy combatant, says that you're in cahoots with bin Laden, and then extracts a confession out of you through isolation for a full year. Do you honestly believe that Congress can't, or shouldn't, do anything about that? If not, why do you hate freedom?

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.

They were freed only because British intelligence could confirm their alibi. The torturers at Gitmo extracted a false confession out of them, and they would've been screwed had the British not been lucky enough to have that very specific evidence. There easily may be countless others who weren't so lucky. Understand?

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?

Yes, there is a difference. Torture on the President's order is far worse than torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


To the left, anything the US does to prisoners is torture.

BS, I'm all for getting information, BUT TORTURE DOES NOT WORK, they will only say what the interrogators want to hear so they stop torturing them, hence the CIA go on a wild goose chase and we don't get anything done.

[Sava]

shut up odin, you left winger... you want to hamstring the US military

YOU CRIMINAL!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Ned...

let's review your arguments... and I paraphrase:

"it's not torture because courts in Israel and Europe say it's not"
"it's okay to torture for information, but not punishment"
"the left wants to hamstring the US military"

Sava, we are talking about the legal definition of torture. What the left says is torture is anything it can pin on Bush.

I did not say it was OK to torture for info. I said it was OK to use the techniques you described as taking place in Gitmo, which have been decided by courts are not torture.

The left does want to hamstring the US military. Deny that with a straight face if you can.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

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.

In which of the court cases did SCOTUS say that the President is above the law in war time?

It all in the memo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


They were freed only because British intelligence could confirm their alibi. The torturers at Gitmo extracted a false confession out of them, and they would've been screwed had the British not been lucky enough to have that very specific evidence. There easily may be countless others who weren't so lucky. Understand?

They confessed? Now I begin to suspect that something stinks the the State of Denmark.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

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?

Yes, there is a difference. Torture on the President's order is far worse than torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

Let me rephrase.

Using coercive techniques that are short of torture to extract information on orders of a Republican president is far worse that torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

But, if a Democrat president orders it, it is legitimate.

[Ramo]

It all in the memo.

This is getting tiresome. Which case Ned?!

They confessed? Now I begin to suspect that something stinks the the State of Denmark.

They confessed after being tortured. Tortured.Tortured! Then they were vindicated by British intelligence. Christ Ned, do you honestly believe that British intel is in cahoots with al-Qaeda?

Let me rephrase.

Using coercive techniques that are short of torture to extract information on orders of a Republican president is far worse that torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

No, a year of solitary to extract information is not "short of torture" but torture.

But, if a Democrat president orders it, it is legitimate.

When all else fails, make **** up. FYI, I'd been very critical of Clinton's assaults on civil liberties (which are negligible in comparison to Dear Leader's, incidentally).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Christ Ned, do you honestly believe that British intel is in cahoots with al-Qaeda?

It's Ned. Of course he does.

No, a year of solitary to extract information is not "short of torture" but torture.

Indeed. IIRC, actions like that have been considered 'cruel and unusual' punishment in US courts.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, there is a difference. Torture on the President's order is far worse than torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

Originally posted by Odin
BS, I'm all for getting information, BUT TORTURE DOES NOT WORK,

Originally posted by Ned
Let me rephrase.

Using coercive techniques that are short of torture to extract information on orders of a Republican president is far worse that torture by a soldier acting autonomously.

But, if a Democrat president orders it, it is legitimate.

What a copout. It doesn't matter who does it. It's just a coincidence that the current President is the only President in the history of the United States to have the Geneva Conventions formally suspended.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


To the left, anything the US does to prisoners is torture.

Could it be that the left want to hamstring the US military?

Ah, so the Republicans and Ned and military torturers have copyrighted 'The United States'. I think I missed that development, but it explains why I don't have my 'Big Unquestioning Friend of the U.S.' starter kit, unlike Tony Blair, and other Famous Friends, like Mobutu, Pinochet, Savimbi, Somoza and Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Still, they say you can judge people by the company they keep....


And no, Ned, neither the left (nor the Left) nor the non-aligned 'Poly posters here want to 'hamstring' the U.S. military.



That would be torture.

[Alexander's Horse]

The thing is torture doesn't work.

[Ned]

Ramo, here's the case. The memo goes on to discuss "statutory construction" to conclude that Congress did not intend to infringe on the president's authority as CinC, else the statute would be unconstitutional.