What do you know? American "torture" worked...

[Pekka]

VElo, haven't seen these, I'm 20 minutes in with the first one.. seems pretty good so far, and it has great old clips

Thanks...

[Pekka]

NO.. let me rephrase that.. this seems excellent so far.

Recommend this so far pretty strongly to everyone.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Actually warping is an interesting take. I submit there really isn't that much warping considering the admittedly blood thirsty nature of the US and rather broad support for death penalty.

Americans have always felt monsters should pay dearly including with their lives if necessary for the greater good. Nothing much changed despite the inferences that we are all just frightened little children.

Big difference between Just punsishments, and pointedly causing misery and suffering.

JM

[Velociryx]

Pekka...you're welcome...I finished the series out for the second time today, and was duly impressed. Good, informative stuff.

-=Vel=-

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Asher
9/11. Very well done.

Corrected for your convenience

[Drake Tungsten]

The Bush administration and Senate Republicans have reached a deal on legislation relating to how terrorism suspects are treated and tried by the United States.

President Bush, traveling in Florida, praised the deal - which he said would preserve the Central Intelligence Agency's program to question terror suspects and create military commissions to bring terrorists to justice.

"The agreement will do what the American people expect us to do, to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists, and then to try them," said President Bush.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-21-voa80.cfm

Looks like a victory for the good guys.

[TheStinger]

The US authorities used to be reluctant to send suspected IRA members back to the UK because they might be "tortured" this torture was mainly the use of stress postions.

What has changed

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Torture is the way to go!
Worked great against "Article 58":s in the USSR.
Doesn't Bill O'Reilly look a lot like Beria btw?

Maybe they could sell it better to the public if they'd create some nice slogans, like

"Torture - making our lives better everyday"

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The Bush administration and Senate Republicans have reached a deal on legislation relating to how terrorism suspects are treated and tried by the United States.

President Bush, traveling in Florida, praised the deal - which he said would preserve the Central Intelligence Agency's program to question terror suspects and create military commissions to bring terrorists to justice.

"The agreement will do what the American people expect us to do, to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists, and then to try them," said President Bush.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-21-voa80.cfm

Looks like a victory for the good guys.

United States Constitution

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seems pretty clear to me what this "deal" means in the grander scheme of constitutional law: Diddly-squat. Only an amendment can overrule this part (or any part, for that matter) of the USC. That or annulment of the United States participation in the Geneva Conventions. Then, it would be pretty clear to everyone we were engaging in illegal torture... and the terrorists will have won.

[DinoDoc]

Do you know what the details of the deal, DRoseDARs?

[BeBMan]

What do you make of this deal? What does it say en detail? Yesterday I saw a short news clip showing McCain saying the "spirit of the geneva conventions" wouldn't be touched - what does the united people of polyland think about this?

[DinoDoc]

AFAIK, the details haven't been released.

[Footie Mad]

9/11 = 911 = Emergency number for authorities to take control of a situation.

Coincidence?!?! I don't think so!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
What do you make of this deal? What does it say en detail? Yesterday I saw a short news clip showing McCain saying the "spirit of the geneva conventions" wouldn't be touched - what does the united people of polyland think about this?

'The agreement contains concessions by both sides, though the White House yielded ground on two of the most contentious issues: It agreed to drop a provision that would have narrowly interpreted international standards of prisoner treatment and another allowing defendants to be convicted on evidence they never see.

The accord, however, explicitly states that the president must live within the confines of the Geneva Convention standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments, and cruel and inhuman treatment.

The agreement would grant Congress' permission for Bush to convene military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects, a process the Supreme Court had blocked in June because it had not been authorized by lawmakers.

During those trials, coerced testimony would be admissible if a judge allows and if it was obtained before cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment was forbidden by a 2005 law. Bush wanted to allow all such testimony, while three maverick Republican senators — John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — had wanted to exclude it.

The central sticking point had been a demand by the three senators that there be no attempt to redefine U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

"We got what we wanted, and that is the preservation of the Geneva Conventions," McCain said Friday on NBC's "Today" show. "There will be no more torture. There will be no more mistreatment of prisoners that violates standards of conduct we would expect of people who work for the United States of America."'





absent further details, my vague impression is McCain won and the admin caved.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And therein lies the problem. As defined presently, this "War on Terror" will last a thousand years, and beyond.

There IS no end, and that's what the NeoCons want.

That's why we're seeing legislation like we are.

I view it as dangerous in the extreme, and would count those who are pushing this agenda on us to be among the worst criminals in our nation's history, for the very reasons you cited in your excellent post, which provides a synopsis of the current situation.

Our laws, whatever the topic, should be formed not out of hatred or secrecy, and not out of some knee-jerk reaction to current events, but out of careful consideration and close adherence to the ideals that our forefathers cherished. To do less is to do a grave disservice to the nation they forged for us and left in our care.

Sadly, we are seeing signs of exactly such negligent behavior, expressed only too clearly by the posturing of the sitting administration.

If it does not stop...if WE do not stop it, then the long slow slide gains momentum.

-=Vel=-

Agreed to an extent. Part of the issue is laws as drafted in present time represent the current will of people. Part of the issue is the vagueness that has prevailed in the laws as previously written. There are any number of situations where the Current or for that matter past executives tasked with complying with laws and treaties have taken as aggressive a stance as possible when conditions are ripe (and according to critics beyond the bounds of intent/legality case and point NSA surveilances, these kinds of interrogation methods, arrests of enemies without due process or at best improper military tribunal, etc.). One can certainly argue this current executive has interpretted incorrectly but all that being said the executive is supposed to be an officer of the constitution and that is his responsibility. Failure to do so and punt the issue blindly to SCOTUS is an abrogation of constituional responsibilities which each President has sworn to do and uphold. (Case and point Bush when signing McCain Feingold campaign finance stated for the record he thought the matter in conflict with 1st amendment and still signed the bill into law saying he would let SCOTUS decide the matter. )There are compelling arguements for both sides which is why when it comes to matters of constitutionality the final arbitrator ultimately becomes SCOTUS, but again that doesn't mean all branches aren't tasked with interpreting the laws and their applicability to the constitution. For the record there is almost certainly a bit of hyperbole on both sides of the issue. But I think in order to clear these types of things up more clearly defined guidelines is a good thing (as long as there are no constitutional perogatives that are violated as a result.)


As for compliance with Connstituion Article VI, yes the US is bound to comply with Geneva conventions to the extent that they signed. Definitions of torture at that time were exceedingly vague. I am unsure if the definitions of torture apply or not to the above but clearly the senate had some idea when they since ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment where they clearly delinieated their reservations on the definitions of torture as follows :

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.