The Politics of Torture

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The Politics of Torture

Lost amid the legal wrangling over how to interrogate detainees are the techniques used in the war on terror.



By Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Sept. 25, 2006 issue - Waterboarding, which dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, is an interrogation method that involves strapping a prisoner face up onto a table and pouring water into his nose. The idea is to create the sensation of drowning so that the panicked prisoner will talk. According to The New York Times, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded by the CIA. He eventually confessed what President Bush described last Friday as "information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else." Neither Bush nor any other administration official has acknowledged, on the record, the use of waterboarding or any other specific CIA method. But at a White House news conference, Bush passionately defended the once secret CIA interrogation program involving such "alternative" techniques as "vital."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14871154/site/newsweek/#storyContinuedThe question is whether waterboarding, however effective, is torture—and whether Americans ought to be doing such things at all. Some leading Republican senators, John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, believe it should be clearly banned under new legislation. The Bush administration has proposed its own bill seeking to redefine the Geneva Conventions—which set out the rules of war—in order to preserve the CIA's right to use some harsher methods. But even Bush's former secretary of State, Colin Powell, publicly questioned last week whether the administration's stance might lead the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." And recently Bush administration officials, in private negotiations with the Senate, have agreed to drop waterboarding from a list of approved CIA interrogation techniques, according to a Senate source involved in the dispute. (He, like the other administration officials and congressional sources quoted in this story, asked not to be identified owing to the sensitivity of the negotiations over classified information.)


The Bush administration wants to maintain seven other approved CIA interrogation methods, however, for use against suspected high-level terrorists, according to one congressional source and a lawyer involved in the negotiations. A senior administration official said he could not discuss what CIA methods are still being considered. But the official added that "one should not assume all techniques used previously will be used in the future." He also noted that the new U.S. Army field manual bans waterboarding. Two other sources, one a U.S. legislator and the other a counterterrorism official, told NEWSWEEK that the total number of CIA detainees subjected to the "most rigorous" interrogation techniques was less than five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the only one among them whose identity has been acknowledged by former government officials.
The GOP's intraparty dispute centers on a single provision of the Geneva Conventions. The president has criticized a Supreme Court decision last June that ruled all suspected terrorists, even those detained secretly by the CIA, are protected under Geneva's Common Article 3, which forbids "outrages upon personal dignity" and "cruel treatment."

Bush says that, under such vague rules, CIA professionals will not know if the interrogation techniques they are using are legal, and they could be vulnerable to war crimes prosecution. He's proposing a new law that will more narrowly define Common Article 3 to mean only "serious" violations. McCain and the other GOP senators have indicated they would be willing to amend domestic U.S. law, especially the War Crimes Act, to permit at least some "enhanced" CIA techniques. They are also willing to pass legislation that would deny many rights to detainees at Guantánamo Bay and allow them to be held indefinitely. But the senators, who appear to have the support of a majority of their colleagues, want to keep the Geneva restriction broadly defined in order to protect U.S. troops abroad. "What is billed [by Bush] as 'clarifying' our treaty obligations will be seen as 'withdrawing' from the treaty obligations," Graham said. "It will set precedent, which could come back to haunt us."

Neither administration nor congressional sources would describe the other interrogation methods in dispute. As NEWSWEEK has previously reported, various CIA techniques such as open-handed slapping were first discussed in Alberto Gonzales's office in 2002 before the then White House Counsel became attorney general. Scott Horton, a New York City Bar Association lawyer who has advised the Senate on the legislation, says Capitol Hill aides have told him that the CIA has sought to use the following techniques: (1) induced hypothermia; (2) long periods of forced standing; (3) sleep deprivation; (4) the "attention grab" (the forceful seizing of a suspect's shirt); (5) the "attention slap"; (6) the "belly slap"; and (7) sound and light manipulation. Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for the group Human Rights Watch, says that Hill sources working on the legislation have described the same list to him.

Some human-rights activists view only the first two methods, hypothermia and forced standing, as outright torture. But Malinowski said there is a reason why U.S. military interrogation manuals consistently ban physical abuse of any kind. "The Army's experience has taught them that once you allow physical contact once, even if it's mild, it's very difficult to prevent much more violent physical contact," he said.
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
I hope we are not using methods like these in Afganistan. Torture at any excuse is not acceptable as far as I am concerned.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
perhaps its just me, but...

The price of life and security=

One suffers and/or dies to save 100's 1000's 1,000,000's, I find the math acceptable. Though the means are a nightmare, the ends sometimes justify the means.

I know many will dissagree, but they can and do use the rights and priviledges afforded them, because of people like myself, willing to do what is nessecary to protect them from the greater evils of the world. Although in many cases, those evils are self realized.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
perhaps its just me, but...

The price of life and security=

One suffers and/or dies to save 100's 1000's 1,000,000's, I find the math acceptable. Though the means are a nightmare, the ends sometimes justify the means.

I know many will dissagree, but they can and do use the rights and priviledges afforded them, because of people like myself, willing to do what is nessecary to protect them from the greater evils of the world. Although in many cases, those evils are self realized.

I don't want us to be like them. And that's what we are if we're willing to torture people. At the very least, we're going to have to never complain again if our soldiers are mistreated when they're captured.

The other problem with it is a very practical one. People will say anything to make the pain stop. Anything. Truth doesn't come from that. How many times do we need to see people like William Sampson confess to crimes they didn't commit before that sinks in?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I can post enough documentation that shows that captured Soldiers across time and borders have not always been afforded the niceties of the GC, that would literally shut this site down.

I have felt the rage that is created when you see someone you might know, dragged through the streets half naked and then mutilated and violated, by having a bayonet shuved in his rectum. Or perhaps the site of someone being beheaded.

I prefer the methods developed during WWII(LWF), to deal with the Japanese, and are still utilized today by the FBI. They are very effective, far more so then the ines used by the CIA, but that is just my opinion.

As much as torture leaves a long filthy taste in ones mouth, do not take for granted the benefits of the sacrifices of others, for your safety and security.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I can post enough documentation that shows that captured Soldiers across time and borders have not always been afforded the niceties of the GC, that would literally shut this site down.

I have felt the rage that is created when you see someone you might know, dragged through the streets half naked and then mutilated and violated, by having a bayonet shuved in his rectum. Or perhaps the site of someone being beheaded.
.

That's exactly my point. Raging against those indignities and tortures is completely hypocritical if we're willing to inflict them on others. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the ones who won't say the ends justify the means no matter how barbaric the means (and again, that's assuming that torture will even result in useful and truthful info which is a BIG if).
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That's exactly my point. Raging against those indignities and tortures is completely hypocritical if we're willing to inflict them on others. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the ones who won't say the ends justify the means no matter how barbaric the means (and again, that's assuming that torture will even result in useful and truthful info which is a BIG if).
You are correct, but as has been said about me, I am a hypocrit a dyametricaly apposed thought wrapped up in teddybear blanket, don't do it to mine, blah blah blah, but I WILL do worse to yours, so be it. I am willing to make that distinction for your safety and security. I am willing to sink to the darkest of places and kill or mame with no thought other then the objective at hand.

If peoples lives hang in the balance, I would sell my soul to the highest bidder to save them, that may sound cold, ignorant, whatever, but far to many people take for granted, what so many have sacrificed, for what they precieved as a just cause. It may be ignorant, but it is not committed out of sin, it is committed out of a sense of duty, well from my oint of view anyways. I'm sure there are a few that are just sick f**ks, but I for one, don't think I am

It doesn't change who I am. It doesn't change you. I am glad that you dissagree with me and the use of torure, I am an animal, I don't want to know that there are more then just us Army types out there feeling this way, and using that dark unfeeling evil within themselves, for no good or good, who am I to judge.

Have you read this...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/philosophy-discussion/51934-dad-would-you-could-you.html
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
I send a 2nd post but I guess I didn't click post reply @%$&$!

Here is what I said: Here safe in our homes we are horrified by the concept of torture but I can understand that men who spend their days with the possibility of being killed or captured, seeing unthinkable mistreatment of their own men and others really gets to them. If it didn't they would not be human. I can understand that in the field torture might be considered the fastest way to get information to save lives but as a civilian I have trouble getting my mind around that thought.
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
In this circumstance I agree, even with my civilian mind, that there is no choice. The safety of your men would be your priorty. That is what soldiering is all about sometimes you have to make unpleasant decisions and I am sure that a lot of soldiers live with the nightmares for the rest of their lives.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I send a 2nd post but I guess I didn't click post reply @%$&$!

Here is what I said: Here safe in our homes we are horrified by the concept of torture but I can understand that men who spend their days with the possibility of being killed or captured, seeing unthinkable mistreatment of their own men and others really gets to them. If it didn't they would not be human. I can understand that in the field torture might be considered the fastest way to get information to save lives but as a civilian I have trouble getting my mind around that thought.

In this circumstance I agree, even with my civilian mind, that there is no choice. The safety of your men would be your priorty. That is what soldiering is all about sometimes you have to make unpleasant decisions and I am sure that a lot of soldiers live with the nightmares for the rest of their lives.
You get it, you don't like the taste, I agree it tastes like shyte, but you get it.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
You are correct, but as has been said about me, I am a hypocrit a dyametricaly apposed thought wrapped up in teddybear blanket, don't do it to mine, blah blah blah, but I WILL do worse to yours, so be it. I am willing to make that distinction for your safety and security. I am willing to sink to the darkest of places and kill or mame with no thought other then the objective at hand.

If peoples lives hang in the balance, I would sell my soul to the highest bidder to save them, that may sound cold, ignorant, whatever, but far to many people take for granted, what so many have sacrificed, for what they precieved as a just cause. It may be ignorant, but it is not committed out of sin, it is committed out of a sense of duty, well from my oint of view anyways. I'm sure there are a few that are just sick f**ks, but I for one, don't think I am

It doesn't change who I am. It doesn't change you. I am glad that you dissagree with me and the use of torure, I am an animal, I don't want to know that there are more then just us Army types out there feeling this way, and using that dark unfeeling evil within themselves, for no good or good, who am I to judge.

Have you read this...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/philosophy-discussion/51934-dad-would-you-could-you.html

You can do what you will, but don't pretend it's for me because it isn't. I didn't ask for it, don't want it and would actively try to stop it if I could. I'm not willing to give up a piece of MY soul (or yours) for my security. And again, I don't even believe it would increase our security anyways. Information obtained through torture is unreliable.

I read the other thread and it's different. That thread is talking about a definite benefit for one bad action. Save the life of someone you care about by sacrificing someone you don't? That's a pretty normal response. That's not what this thread is about.

Through a chance meeting I was forced to think about this a lot. Would I rather be the one suffering or the one inflicting suffering for no good reason? I'm not a pacifist. I believe violence is sometimes necessary in self defense or in the defense of others. I don't believe torturing someone to gain unreliable information is worthwhile. I think it's vile. It's as evil as murdering innocent civilians in NY. It IS an act commited out of sin. I'm not a religious person, but I know this much is true: we aren't our intentions. We're our actions.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
You get it, you don't like the taste, I agree it tastes like shyte, but you get it.

I hope you don't think that I don't understand what leads someone to feel like you do. I understand it because I think it's normal. I just think a lot of normal impulses should remain illegal. That's what separates us from them.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I hope you don't think that I don't understand what leads someone to feel like you do. I understand it because I think it's normal. I just think a lot of normal impulses should remain illegal. That's what separates us from them.
Oh no tracy, that couldn't be further from the truth, I know you understand my position, you just will not stomach it. And I know why, you object to it strongly, which is what seperates you from the animals as it does Sparrow.

Sorry if I lead you to believe I held you in a bad light. You and I have conversed in the past, I know you are a good and decent person.
 

fatbasturd

Electoral Member
Feb 12, 2007
179
2
18
perhaps its just me, but...

The price of life and security=

One suffers and/or dies to save 100's 1000's 1,000,000's, I find the math acceptable. Though the means are a nightmare, the ends sometimes justify the means.

I know many will dissagree, but they can and do use the rights and priviledges afforded them, because of people like myself, willing to do what is nessecary to protect them from the greater evils of the world. Although in many cases, those evils are self realized.
It is a very complicated issue....one vs many.
Not just on the subject of torture but also on many different issues, so those who use the one vs many premise will always find ways to justify it....and those who don't will always condem it.
I would have to be involved in the issue on a personal level before i could say one way or another.
 

karra

Ranter
Jan 3, 2006
158
3
18
here, there, and everywher
Interestingly, for those who watch 24, this has become a major issue for the show's producers - it seems Jack has been running loose since his repatriation from China - torturing those who stand in opposition (Muslims natch) of his obtaining a number of suitcase nukes - one, maybe two have detonated - the Pentagon(?) or Army(?) or both have requested that the producers show other ways of obtaining the info required - as opposed to the ticking bomb torture theory. . . .