Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree with most of that. I do question why the CIA should be limited to those tactics allowed by the Army field manual, though. It seems to me that a CIA interrogator should probably have more leeway in dealing with detainees than your run-of-the-mill Army grunt.

[child of Thor]

The american pro torture guys really shouldn't use gitmo as an example of being ok in your arguements, it really wont help your cause.
The fact that each of the british 'terrorists' that have been returned here have been released with no charges against them by our government(and you americans should know all about our draconian and big brother uk society - you fought hard and well to be rid of it).
I think this speaks volumes about gitmo and what it actualy is, and its value as a means to win the war on terror.

So if the British+ Isreali secret services are showing restraint over these type of proposed changes - i think a freedom loving american should leave it well alone, it really shouldn't be in your natures

Still i'm in favour of a clear defined message of what is and what isnt allowed - especialy useful to avoid another abu-ghrab

[Velociryx]

Mmmmm...torture.



-=Vel=-
(what's sad is that we have a number of supposedly democratically minded, enlightened folks posting here, who seem to be all for it. THAT's strange)

[child of Thor]

@Vel, well if your refering to my comments that on reflection looks like i support it; well i think "kind of" is where im sitting on this.
I know it goes on, in its murky own world - and after the revelations of what exactly was going on in Ireland(on both sides) for the last 20 odd years, i guess i'm being realistic by not believing the 'we wont sink to the(insert evil dictator/regime) enemies level cause were the good guys' type line.
I'm pretty sure in the real world since from before the middle ages that has never been a 100% reality.

SO........if we can get a little clarity and honesty about what our side is really doing, then i'm for that.

I'm not infavour of this specific bill as i think it goes beyond what is really neccesary or actualy usefull in gaining good intel. You can reach a point in torture where you will get all the answers your looking for. They will probably be incorrect, but you the interigator will be happy your making 'real' progress.
Abu-gharib+Gitmo are examples of where the 'fervor' to get results destroys more than its captives lives, and this is where you have to be carefull.

Losing the moral high ground is probably more important on the domestic front, rather than in the eyes of an enemy. Are you comfortable going to church on a sunday(or twice a week if your keen), and also knowing, in front of your 'god' - that you are supporting torture?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Mmmmm...torture.



-=Vel=-
(what's sad is that we have a number of supposedly democratically minded, enlightened folks posting here, who seem to be all for it. THAT's strange)

are you referring to me?

[SpencerH]

I'll make my comment as ambiguous as Vels's.

Lets all sit around, hold hands, and sing kumbaya while we pretend that someone who is willing to strap C4 onto his or her body, walk into a crowd of people, and kill themselves (along with as many others as possible) is gonna provide any information without torture. I just want to make sure that the various 'flower children' here understand that without the ability to exert pressure on these scum, we may not obtain info that could potentially be used to save their families lives.

I'll support Oerdin's opinion on this one.

[Atahualpa]

Lets all sit around, hold hands, and sing kumbaya while we pretend that someone who is willing to strap C4 onto his or her body, walk into a crowd of people, and kill themselves (along with as many others as possible) is gonna provide any information without torture.

Well, if you're happy with _any_ information... that's exactly what you'll get... if torture is anything, then a guarantee that you'll get what you want to hear... where's the bomb!? Where's the ****ing bomb!?!? *frying him with 10000 volts* Eh?!? - In a warehouse in New York, 9th Avenue, warehous is titled "gunz", the code to enter is "911" on the number pad, but you have to wait at least 3 secs for each number, if you type to fast, automatic machine guns will pop up and kill you -

How can you make a martyr less of a martyr if you torture him?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by child of Thor
The american pro torture guys

Hmmm, are you in favor of legalized abortion? Pro-death you are!

[Atahualpa]

Trying to distract the debate by making stupid links

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
God forbid we attempt to break the resistance of those we interrogate.

Actually the best way to do so is to befriend them.

The Bush Administration it's so.... Medieval.

[Velociryx]

Nahhh, I'm not against strong-arm tactics when the situation warrants it (LoTM's example of a nuke somewhere in a major city, no time to evacuate, no time for subtlety)...sure. VERY specific cases call for extreme measures, but let's face it, the folks in the Middle East have hated us for a long time...this is hardly a new, nor a time-sensitive problem.

Further, by stooping to "their level" we give away what few shreds of "moral high ground" we have left.

It's just not a worthwhile tradeoff for the scant, sketchy information we MIGHT get.

But, I'll be quick to add, it's pretty typical of the sitting administration, and I'm not surprised in the least by the usual suspects coming out in support of it. In fact, I daresay that if the sitting administration started pushing for the death penalty for speeding and jaywalking, those same usual suspects would come around extolling the virtues of the idea....

-=Vel=-

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


that's the main point in my opinion.
Most of America's foreign policy is based on America having the moral high ground somehow (Take out Saddam the evil torturer...).
While this is already arguable, recently it is becoming more and more laughable.

Yep, Condalezza Rice said something to the effect towards Syria the other day that, "We don't believe that just because one nation has a problem with another nation, that it gives them the right to assassinate the other nation's leader."

You know, UNLESS HE JUST HAPPENS TO BE SADDAM HUSSEIN

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No, it's degrading treatment, however (and quite obviously).

So you think it should be illegal?

Uhhh...it ALREADY IS ILLEGAL under the Geneva Conventions.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Are you really breaking down their mental defenses or just making them pissed off at you, hardening those defenses?

I think the interrogators that do this for a living probably have a better idea about the effects of their actions than you do. I say let them do things the way they think will be most effective, as long as they don't engage in torture or inhumane treatment.

Most professional interrogators who are experts on the subject all agree that the harsher treatments are ineffective, basically all you are doing is getting the prisoner to say what you want them to.

On top of that, these methods badly damage the reputation of the people and nation that sanction it. Whatever measley information that MAY actually be gained out of these silly interrogations is minimal compared to the damaging cost that they incurr to our reputation, political capital, international goodwill, and most importantly, our INTEGRITY.


Charles Graner is an excellent example of a professional interogater.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander

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

Guantanamo. Rendition. Abu Gharib. And those are just the ones we know about. It's systematic. whether you care to believe it or not.

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.

The Geneva Convetion has EVERYTHING to do with this bill, as it is the gold standard, when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. Anything and everything that involves treatment of prisoners will be compared to the Geneva Convention precedent.

How could you NOT compare anything like this to the Geneva Convention??

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.

That makes absolutley no sense whatsover. If they don't need to change the law then why would they put it in a freakin special rider to a Congressional Bill. If the law was already there then they should be able to reference it.