Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Drake Tungsten]

Again, I was under the impression that torture and abuse are ineffective interrogation techniques. Is that impression untrue?

I'm inclined to believe it might be untrue, under some circumstances at the very least. Why would so many people in the intelligence community want to make use of the techniques in question if they are ineffective? I guess you could claim that they're all sadists, but I find that a little hard to believe...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DanS

Again, I was under the impression that torture and abuse are ineffective interrogation techniques. Is that impression untrue?

If that were true we wouldnt bother to do it nor would we bother to train people to withstand it.

[Kuciwalker]

I have a hard time believing it's effective enough to be worth the public image hit we take from arguing against this sort of bill.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Very good. Aside from the 'knights in shining armor nonsense', I note that their major argument is that our 'avoidance' of the Geneva conventions (not that I accept that terrorists are entitled to such conventions) puts our own soldiers at risk.

DUH

Given that the scum we are discussing have cut throats, beheaded men and women civilians, then published the videotapes of their atrocities, just what treatment do these commanders expect for our soldiers at their hands?

And that's where you are misguided. You are beliving that the people being held are the worst of the worst. That's just not the case. Innocent people are being mistreated. The UK (our very closest ally) and several other nations DEMANDED that we release prisoners from Guantanamo. Innocent prisoners have been released from Abu Ghraib because they had done nothing wrong.

I also note that some are indeed distinguished commanders. I have to wonder, though, would they have refused to use intel that was gained by such means in previous wars.

You're assuming the intelligence gathered is worthwhile in the first place. As has been stated numerous times by experts and alot of people in this thread, information gathered by means of torture or other force is usually worthless.

Methinks their soapboxes are a little precarious.

That's good, because METHINKS you're standing on one. Except it has no soap in it.

Maybe you can borrow this guy's:

[Berzerker]

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill

Thats a crime against the taxpayers

[Dinner]

It is at least 50% pork as all military spending bills are. Want to fight pork? Cut military spending and insist that the money allocated actually be spent on the soldiers in the military instead of worthless bases and dubious weapon systems which aren't needed.

[Berzerker]

yup, that way if you vote against the bill you get accused of not supporting the troops...in this country democracy just increases the number of hands trying to pick Uncle Sam's pocket.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I'll be damned if I'll stand idly by while some of my countrymen and women decide to take the "easy way out" and condone torture in the name of acquiring information (which may or may not be accurate).

Who's condoning torture? I haven't seen a single person do so on this thread, which makes your outraged stand seem a little silly...

Perhaps not on this thread — as of the bottom of the second page — but the Abu Ghraibs and Gutanamo Bays of the world sure as hell are indicative that there are Americans out there — in and outside of the military, some in powerful positions — who don't particularly mind the use of torture or near-torture, or shipping terror suspects off to our foreign friends for a little "friendly conversation" or two (Egypt and Saudi Arabia come to mind here).

Gatekeeper

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

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

If it's systematic why were people treated very differently on the night shift at Abu Graib than at other times? Why were some prisoners beaten to death by the Seals while others were not? These weren't distinctions in treatment decided by a field manual or by a secret policy written by Dick Cheney, they are random variations on what has been so far as embarrassingly un-systematic policy as possible.

Originally posted by Ted Striker

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??

Well I and almost every other poster have managed to avoid it so far. I guess the real question is for you.

Originally posted by Ted Striker

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.

It's just a bill, it is only a bill, and it's sitting there on Capitol Hill.

Should I print the rest of the lyrics, or do you understand that a bill is a proposed law and not a law itself. Calling a bill a law is like landing on an aircraft carrier with a big banner saying "mission accomplished" at the outset of a long guerilla war. The administration prefers that no new law be passed (ie they wanted the status quo), but when they saw that it was likely that the bill was going to pass they sought to weaken it.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Some of the info obtained from someone under duress might be untrue. The veracity of any info obtained that way is easy enough to check however. You, on the other hand, will obtain no info and are therefore doomed to failure. So off to the song-circle with you, the other hippies are waiting.

You make the mistake to assume what you want to assume...


The catch about the special cases is that these can easily be covered in courts. There is no need to make torture legal nationwide for any matters. Torture should generally be illegal, but if some persons do not obey and save a million people through it, I'd say we can make an _exception_, because special cases need special exceptions and not a law that covers everything, since that would be broken by design anyway. A judge should decide IMO.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


You make the mistake to assume what you want to assume...

OK, you've got me there i.e. I have no idea what I'm assuming.

The catch about the special cases is that these can easily be covered in courts. There is no need to make torture legal nationwide for any matters. Torture should generally be illegal, but if some persons do not obey and save a million people through it, I'd say we can make an _exception_, because special cases need special exceptions and not a law that covers everything, since that would be broken by design anyway. A judge should decide IMO.

I agree that making torture legal is unecessary and a bad step to take. No one is trying to do that though. What the administration is trying to do is to exempt the CIA from the McCain amendment. I oppose that exemption since it defines what is torture and what is not. In extreme cases what needs to be done will be done (as has always happened) and if they get caught they will be prosecuted and become instant pariah's whether they deserve it or not.


What bothers me is the hypocrisy of those who wring their hands for our enemys suffering or mouth untruths about the usefulness of torture while reaping the benefits gained from such information (even though they may never know it).

This kinda sums up my opinion on that matter:

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know - that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

[Velociryx]

But there's the rub, isn't it?

The METHOD used in the execution of ANY human endeavour is *hugely* important.

Thus, if a man makes millions by running drugs, and robbing old ladies of their pension checks, he is regarded very differently from the man who made his millions through hard, smart, diligent work.

Method is at least as important as result.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Of, course, spencer, you realize that the quote you gave us was from the villain in that movie... right?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Of, course, spencer, you realize that the quote you gave us was from the villain in that movie... right?

He wasnt a villain to me.

[Cyclotron]

Then I suggest you watch the movie again.