64 Senators Support Torture

[Agathon]

The picture, by itself, only suggests the possibility of torture. We need more information before we can convict. For example: how long does it take before one begins to suffer "extreme pain?" Second, how long was this individual made to stand in that position?

What other reason than the infliction of pain could there be for making someone stand this way?

[SpencerH]

Ned, I dont know if you're a bulldog or a glutton for punishment. I've given up (at least for the time being) and prefer to leave these inexperienced dweebs to their rich fantasy lives.

[Ramo]

That is not right. I think G. said that al Qaeda does not have these protections. That is a whole different kettle of fish, is it not. For if the pres was not restricted as you say G. said, everyone, including you and me, would be subject to "torture."

You clearly have ignored the criticisms of Gonzales then. The Bybee memo says that the commander-in-chief can overrule any law that he believes to be unconstitutional, and Gonzales considers laws that restrict the "interrogation" of any enemy combatants to be unconstitutional. In particular, the Bybee memo stated that the Federal Anti-torture Statute, passed by Congress, is unconstitutional and should be ignored by the C-in-C.

See page 31:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

Also, even though al Qaeda was not subject to the protections of any of these documents does not ipso facto mean that he advocated "torture" or that the Senators who supported him also voted for torture. That is nonsense.

By any reading of the law - the Federal Anti-Torture Statute and the Anti-torture Conventions, torture of even al-Qaeda members is illegal. Period. Asserting otherwise is equivalent to advocating torture (if I were to say, "massacring white people is definitely legal," when it clearly isn't, do you not think that's not a prescription rather than a description?). Voting for authoritarian douches like Gonzales is condoing torture.

Furthermore, how do you know that the enemy combatants are al-Qaeda members? The DoJ in general, including Gonzales, argued that the courts should have no jurisdiction over enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured, regardless of whether they are citizen or alien. Even SCOTUS has gone along with that to some extent, placing the burden on the suspects to prove otherwise; you're guilty until proven innocent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Furthermore, how do you know that the enemy combatants are al-Qaeda members? The DoJ in general, including Gonzales, argued that the courts should have no jurisdiction over enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured, regardless of whether they are citizen or alien. Even SCOTUS has gone along with that to some extent, placing the burden on the suspects to prove otherwise; you're guilty until proven innocent.

[Ted Striker]

Which has directly resulted in people being withheld without being charged, and some of them are innocent victims

[Ted Striker]

SCROTUM

[Alexander's Horse]

why bash the torture policy when it has been so successful?

OBL found, USA loved throughout the world and keeping the moral high ground in the war on terror.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Nah. We need juries composed only of lawyers.

Yes, I think the various Inquisitions had ones like that, composed of equivocators like Gonzales.


The only thing more repulsive than a crooked lawyer, is one whose few remaining ethics are deemed disposable when political preferment is in their sights.


Mmm, think I'll have some of that Torture Lite when I get home, and see if I can induce circulatory necrosis and possibly a heart attack.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, I myself was talking purely about stress positions as method of torture, not that picture. Except that the position in that pic is stress position. Of course it takes some time to make it painful. But you admit stress positions as legit form of torture? If so, then I had no other claims.

There is a problem with that picture. There are no restraints that would hold the prisoner in that position.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

The picture, by itself, only suggests the possibility of torture. We need more information before we can convict. For example: how long does it take before one begins to suffer "extreme pain?" Second, how long was this individual made to stand in that position?

What other reason than the infliction of pain could there be for making someone stand this way?

You got me?

Propaganda?

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ned, I dont know if you're a bulldog or a glutton for punishment. I've given up (at least for the time being) and prefer to leave these inexperienced dweebs to their rich fantasy lives.

Nah. Even if the particular prisoner was suffering "pain," he is not shackled and will not be forced to endure too much pain before he does something, like stand up.

Still, this picture is either from Abu Gharaib or it is staged. If the former, this has nothing to do with US policy. If the latter, well, we know that America's friend will still accuse Gonzales of advocating torture regardless of the facts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

That is not right. I think G. said that al Qaeda does not have these protections. That is a whole different kettle of fish, is it not. For if the pres was not restricted as you say G. said, everyone, including you and me, would be subject to "torture."

You clearly have ignored the criticisms of Gonzales then. The Bybee memo says that the commander-in-chief can overrule any law that he believes to be unconstitutional, and Gonzales considers laws that restrict the "interrogation" of any enemy combatants to be unconstitutional. In particular, the Bybee memo stated that the Federal Anti-torture Statute, passed by Congress, is unconstitutional and should be ignored by the C-in-C.

See page 31:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

I think the principle of unconstitutionality is sound. That still does not mean that G. advocated torture.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned


There is a problem with that picture. There are no restraints that would hold the prisoner in that position.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned


Nah. Even if the particular prisoner was suffering "pain," he is not shackled and will not be forced to endure too much pain before he does something, like stand up.

Look at his feet dude.

You see all the blood pooling up in there?



Ned I know you have strong beliefs, but in this case you're being a cold hearted *****.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

Also, even though al Qaeda was not subject to the protections of any of these documents does not ipso facto mean that he advocated "torture" or that the Senators who supported him also voted for torture. That is nonsense.

By any reading of the law - the Federal Anti-Torture Statute and the Anti-torture Conventions, torture of even al-Qaeda members is illegal. Period. Asserting otherwise is equivalent to advocating torture (if I were to say, "massacring white people is definitely legal," when it clearly isn't, do you not think that's not a prescription rather than a description?). Voting for authoritarian douches like Gonzales is condoing torture.

Furthermore, how do you know that the enemy combatants are al-Qaeda members? The DoJ in general, including Gonzales, argued that the courts should have no jurisdiction over enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured, regardless of whether they are citizen or alien. Even SCOTUS has gone along with that to some extent, placing the burden on the suspects to prove otherwise; you're guilty until proven innocent.

The Fed statute is unconstitutional per the memo.

The international treaties do not apply to al Qaeda.

The memo seeks to define what torture is and what it isn't. It does not advocate the use of torture. That is propaganda.