Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Datajack Franit]

if they get Osama, I don't give a **** about human rights

[Cyclotron]

Your concern for your fellow man warms my heart.

[Datajack Franit]

I like misery

[Cyclotron]

That's touching.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DanS
I really don't understand this. Is there a particularly effective form of interrogation that skates near the edge of abuse or torture?

I always was taught that abuse and torture weren't very effective in getting good information anyway, so I'm curious as to why there should be an exception.

While actual torture might be ineffective at getting good intel, fear of torture combined with the right sort of pressure can be very effective. What this requires is a credible chance that a prisoner might be tortured, something that the administration probably feels would be seriously diminished if this law is passed. Regardless, it should be passed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
They accomplish that with every state of the union address

Don't forget that Independents and many Republicans feel the same way.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


That's pretty much what it is.

Torture is being practiced by our government agencies at a systematic level. It's not just a bunch of isolated incidents or a couple of bad apples. This includes both "real torture" , and also the "torture lite." "Torture lite" is tactics that DanS and Drake are desparatley hoping is practiced 100% of the time, because it can be argued as not being torture. (Even though it clearly is, and clearly violates the Geneva Conventions).

1) Torture is not practived "systematically, even if you believe that there is a policy coming right from the top which allows it.

2) The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with this proposed bill, the changes the administration want to make to it or for that matter many of the cases that the proposed law would impact.

Originally posted by Ted Striker

But to try and change the laws to sanction it--to ENCOURAGE it--takes it to alarming levels that borderline on madness.

The administration isn't trying to change the laws, they are trying to keep them the same, or barring that have them change as little as possible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, sounds like vengeance to me.

Because they are going to to tell you if it's vengeance....

I'm sure those at Abu Ghraib thought said they were breaking down the resolve of the terrorists as well.

Though the justification is kind of funny. Make the prisioner feel unclean so they couldn't pray to God and thus wouldn't be able to gain strength through his religion (you have to wonder about the "Muslim linguist"... especially since you don't need water to do the vudu)! You can't make that **** up!

[Drake Tungsten]

Because they are going to to tell you if it's vengeance....

In case you hadn't noticed, the quote comes from a tell-all book on interrogation practices at Gitmo. There's no reason for the author to hide the fact that vengeance was the motivation for these techniques if that were the case. He would just be hurting his own sales.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I haven't heard any tell-all's say that what happened at Abu Ghraib was motivated by vengeance... do you deny it was?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know what motivated the events at Abu Ghraib any more than you do. Seems like a pretty pointless topic of discussion...

[lord of the mark]

ok, Im going to BOTH defend torture in some cases, AND disagree with the admin position

1. Torture is pointless to get convictions, since its results cant be used in court. The only reason is to get information you can act on

2. Its a poor technique to get info you can act, for reasons explained above

3. Its also very bad for us in the struggle for hearts and minds

4. There may be SOME occasions where you know, say, that theres a nuclear bomb hidden in New York, about to blow, you know John Doe knows where it is. You dont have time for the superior techniques used by police, FBI in the course of normal interrogations. You can quickly check out what John Doe says, so hed better tell the truth if he wants the torture to stop. I think in such a case, torture (or at least some techniques excluded under the McCain bill) might be effective, and might be morally justified. I suspect that is what the admin is thinking of when they oppose the McCain bill.

5. And the admin is wrong to oppose the bill. I mean lets get real. Suppose the situation I outlined above was taking place. Would a CIA interrogator, a patriot who doesnt want to lose New York, really refrain from using torture because of fear of a jail sentence? Wouldnt he risk jail to save millions of lives? Wouldnt he also be aware that to go to jail hed have to be convicted by a jury of Americans - Americans who would get to hear his story about how hed saved New York? In the event that he was convicted, the President of the United States, grateful for New York being saved, could pardon him.

Ergo - torture should NOT be policy. It should NOT be widespread. It MAY be needed in certain nightmare scenarios. But we do not need an exception written into law to handle such nightmare scenarios.

[Lul Thyme]

I agree totally LOTM.
Except with the last sentence of point 4.
I'm pretty sure the administration is smart enough to know point 5, that even with no bill they would have public support in case of event 4, and want more than that.

[Kuciwalker]

I suspect that their beef is the same as Drake's.

[Dinner]

I would like to clarify that I am with Sikander in that I do not believe torture has ever been authorized nor has it been used in a systematic way. The Administration, mainly Cheney but sometime Rumsfielf as well, has blurred the line of what is or isn't torture and that ambiguity has resulted in people not knowing what is or is not allowed. This has resulted in a small number of people doing things like what occured in Abu Gharib. There has been an official policy which allowed questionable tactics to be used which most certainly are degrading.

The simplicity of McCain's bill is that it clearly states only those tactics allowed in the Army field manual are permited so it would remove any ambiguity and every soldier will know exactly what he is allowed. That has to be a major step forward.