Who really cares if we Torture terrorists ?

[sumodat]

I don't know. I am all for roughing them up a little. But not for hardcore torture. No bamboo shutes under the toenails.

I was in the military. If I were caught, I would not want to be tortured. That's the way I look at it. There are rules. I know it sounds stupid to have rules of war, of which are often overlooked. But we are a civilized nation. We need to find other means to extract information we need, and there are other ways!

So, I do not agree with "torture." I do agree with feeding prisoners of war only bread and water. I do agree with a guy "muscling" someone around. And maybe a few "other" tactics, but nothing more than that.

The way I see it, if you are looking for credible information, torture is not the way to get it. People will tell you what you want to hear in order to stop the torture. And if you want to punish someone through torture using torture, well, I just disagree.

[wbblakemore]

Ummm ... the Bush administration claimed that the government had the right to identify ANYONE (including American citizens) as "enemy combatants", and the government should not need any judicial proceedings for this. If someone's name appears on a list (ANY list, for ANY reason .. or even no reason), he can be summarily seized, interned and tortured, according to the administration.

Obviously, the potential for abuse is mind-boggling. Could this administration decide that anyone who disapproves of the war, or its conduct or effectiveness, is somehow giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, therefore qualifying as an enemy combatant itself? Or, reaching a bit further ... what about anyone criticizing the administration itself (that doesn't have a spouse working for the CIA that can be outed). If Karl Rove or even ol' Scooter thought they could get away with it, it would be as legal as church on Sunday, according to the administration's view.

Fortunately, the courts disagreed with the administration ... this time.

[Crazyhorse1]

Frankly, I've had about enough of those who would invent various criteria for prisoners to meet before they qualify for decent treatment from the United States. What do you partriots have to say about this document, of which we are signatories? Should we just blow is off:

The United Nations

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:

PART 1

Article 1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

Article 2

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps. in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5

Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

PART III

Article 6

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 8

No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.

No one shall be held in servitude.

No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;

Paragraph 3(a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court;

For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:

Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (, normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;

Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;

Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

Article 9

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.

Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 10

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;

Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.

The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.

Article 11

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.

Article 12

Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

And so on.

Stange to say. I don't see any requirement for anyone to be wearing a uniform to avoid being tortured or to being treated like a human being. Somebody explain to me please just how it is that the Bush administration is not arguing to violate agreements already made. And just why is it that so many of you think that's ok?

[Thiebear]

Will some body PLEASE come up with some HARD SCIENTIFIC FACTS which describe HOW and WHY torture works???

So far, EVERY SINGLE STUDY I have read on it says the opposite, that torture does NOT work and it HINDERS the efforts because of a myriad of reasons. The only single piece I have read which even remotely said torture COULD POSSIBLY work was on the French Algers episode, and that worked out pretty bad for the French.

I also want SOLID FACTS, not some anecdotal piece of op-ed journalism. Show me specific studies that have looked at torture and have shown that it has a positive effect, not a negative one. I even brought up the Al Qaeda suspect who was feeding us false information, and we used it in our justification of the link to Saddam and Al Qaeda. . . it turns out, you tell your captors what they want to hear. . .

Until somebody from the torture camp does gives hard evidence, you guys are arguing about anecdotes with absolutely no basis of fact.

I already gave you one from SFgate that said they were against it but the CIA's 2 step process not only worked but it caused issues forever with the tortureee and overconfidance and maybe brutalization issue with the torturer...

so heres another from Salon... I also have to try and give you information from sites you will believe and not discredit out of hand: Please stop posting the above. You keep saying we don't do it and it doesnt work.. you know better now so just STOP!

http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2057099

[update Oct. 23, 2001: In stating that the millennium bomb plotters were tortured prior to divulging the plot, I am guilty of over-reading an Oct. 15 article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post. Pincus writes, "The CIA worked with Jordanian, Egyptian, Canadian and Pakistani services, picking up terrorists, some associated with al Qaeda, and moving them to either Jordan or Egypt" and that information from those sources disrupted the bombings. While Pincus did not report, and we cannot know, whether those terrorists were tortured in Egypt and Jordan, he states two paragraphs down that many foreign countries use torture and threats to family members in interrogations. Egypt and Jordan are two of the best-known users of torture in interrogations. Nevertheless, the millennium terrorists questioned there in 1999 may well have been interrogated with full regard for their personal and constitutional rights.]

The CIA has always known that torture works. According to declassified CIA interrogation manuals, the CIA has taught others how it's done, in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries. The manuals refer to using "deprivation of sensory stimuli," "threats and fear," "food and sleep deprivation," and pain to extract information. The most famous case of CIA use of domestic torture was that of Yuri Nosenko, a former KGB agent who defected to the United States in 1964. Believing he was a Soviet spy, the CIA kept Nosenko in solitary confinement for more than three years in a 10-foot-square concrete cell. He was, for long periods of time, denied food, sunlight, reading materials, and human contact. He claims to have been given LSD. When he attempted to build toys out of lint, they were confiscated. The CIA freed Nosenko in 1967, finally concluding he was a bona fide defector after all. This episode and government inquiries into similar situations prompted the dismissal of many executives of the counterintelligence department in the 1970s.

A more recent case of CIA-sanctioned torture involved Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, a Guatemalan revolutionary. His widow, Jennifer Harbury, alleges in a lawsuit that the agency financed and indirectly participated in efforts to torture information out of him, leading ultimately to his death in the early 1990s. She also alleges that the Guatemalans who tortured her husband were paid by the CIA and that two had been trained in torture and interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army's School of the Americas. Last January, in Harbury v. Deutch , the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the torture had not violated Bamaca's Fifth Amendment due process rights. Prior case law holds that noncitizens' rights are violated only in cases of: 1) physical presence in the United States at the time; 2) their mistreatment in a country where the United States exercises de facto political control; or 3) abuse in the course of abduction for trial in an American court. The D.C. Circuit relied heavily on a Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), holding that evidence found during an illegal Fourth Amendment search of a nonresident alien's property in a foreign country was admissible at trial in the United States.

Given this precedent, it's difficult to imagine a Bin Laden associate who's been tortured abroad prevailing in a claim that he was tortured for information, so long as he's not a citizen. It also means we can probably use that information in a U.S. trial. The defendants in the African embassy bombing trials, heard last year in New York City, met with a similar fate. They claimed that during the investigation the FBI threatened to turn them over to the brutal Kenyan authorities if they didn't cooperate with U.S. prosecutors. Confessions were made. The court, finding no evidence that the defendants had actually been mistreated, allowed the evidence to come in.

The rights of U.S. citizens are more significant than the rights of noncitizens or nonresident aliens. The Eighth Amendment proscribes "cruel and unusual" punishment outright, and the case law (Rochin v. California ) establishes that it's a Fifth Amendment violation to do anything to procure evidence that "shocks the conscience." In U.S. courts, the general rule of evidence bars confessions obtained through "oppression" (defined generally as "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and the use of or threat of violence"). International law also forbids the use of torture, most notably in the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

What about the possibility of sending suspects and material witnesses to other countries for interrogation? It worked to foil the millennium bombing plot. We probably can't ask the Egyptians to torture them, but we would certainly benefit from information gained if they did. The 700 detainees aren't being tortured here, but they aren't being treated very nice. They have been held over a month without charges, many in solitary confinement in 8-by-10-foot cells. Some report being deprived of toothbrushes, showers, and warm clothing. They have limited contact with attorneys and none with their families. The material witness statute allows them to be held only "a reasonable amount of time," and it's clear that many of these detentions are not reasonable. It's approaching Nosenko treatment, and in a few weeks it really will "shock the conscience." Among those 700 individuals are Zacarias Moussaoui and Nabil al-Marabh. (Moussaoui is the Moroccan who wanted to learn how to steer a jetliner but wasn't interested in takeoffs or landings. Al-Marabh allegedly had ties to at least two of the New York hijackers and was involved in transferring money for the foiled millennium plot in 1999.) And the United States has already convicted Bin Laden follower Ramzi Yousef for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Yousef has reportedly refused to speak since Sept. 11. Still, it's clear that these detainees are not being beaten, drugged, or subjected to pain per the CIA torture manuals.

[KevinthePRF]

If we torture prisoners, we're no better than they are.

[Thiebear]

If we torture prisoners, we're no better than they are.

Whos they?

The ones that are trying to blow up churches and restaurants and buses of people? o.k.. Its either right or wrong no matter the situation or person.

I hope your the same way on other issues..

[MaddogCT]

you gotta elaborate on that one. I might be wrong, but I think its pretty much 100% if we dont go in and free the prisoners from them they are beheaded.....

Not everyone who is kidnaped or captured is killed or tortured.

If we advocate torture, then those people who did not torture in the past, might be inclined to do so in the future.

:logo:

[Crazyhorse1]

I don't know. I am all for roughing them up a little. But not for hardcore torture. No bamboo shutes under the toenails.

I was in the military. If I were caught, I would not want to be tortured. That's the way I look at it. There are rules. I know it sounds stupid to have rules of war, of which are often overlooked. But we are a civilized nation. We need to find other means to extract information we need, and there are other ways!

So, I do not agree with "torture." I do agree with feeding prisoners of war only bread and water. I do agree with a guy "muscling" someone around. And maybe a few "other" tactics, but nothing more than that.

The way I see it, if you are looking for credible information, torture is not the way to get it. People will tell you what you want to hear in order to stop the torture. And if you want to punish someone through torture using torture, well, I just disagree.

Feeding prisoners only bread and water is a war crime (Geneva Conventions).

[SUNSTONE]

Feeding prisoners only bread and water is a war crime (Geneva Conventions).

Yeah, so is cutting their heads off.

[webnarc]

Yeah, so is cutting their heads off.

and so we being the cycle again.

[Crazyhorse1]

and so we being the cycle again.

I've got a great idea. Why don't we just obey U.S. and International law and go along with the Geneva Conventions and decent behavior in general and just see how it all works out? We might like it. It might even work.

[BlueTalon]

I've got a great idea. Why don't we just obey U.S. and International law and go along with the Geneva Conventions and decent behavior in general and just see how it all works out? We might like it. It might even work.

Ya know, the problem with having an enemy that doesn't respect laws or rules is that they don't respect laws or rules. It REALLY doesn't help our side when soft-headed people try to apply laws and rules to those who aren't supposed to be eligible for the benefits and protections of those rules and laws.

[Predicto]

Ya know, the problem with having an enemy that doesn't respect laws or rules is that they don't respect laws or rules. It REALLY doesn't help our side when soft-headed people try to apply laws and rules to those who aren't supposed to be eligible for the benefits and protections of those rules and laws.

You are right. It is difficult.

On the other hand, I do not think it is softheaded to be concerned when our government says it can do whatever it chooses, including torture, to anyone we choose to label a terrorist, and we never have to tell ANYONE who the person is or why they are being held or how long we are going to hold them or where we are holding them or what we are doing to them - not even our own courts. That does not seem American to me. It seems, well, totalitarian.

[SUNSTONE]

and so we being the cycle again.

Wrong!

We don't cut their heads off on TV.

[SUNSTONE]

I've got a great idea. Why don't we just obey U.S. and International law and go along with the Geneva Conventions and decent behavior in general and just see how it all works out? We might like it. It might even work.

They can't compete with us in war, so they will do any dirty little trick to try and gain the edge.

If they want to go by the GC rules, then fine I'm up for that.

But they are't doing that, they're cutting the heads off.

[webnarc]

Wrong!

We don't cut their heads off on TV.

You didn't take me the right way.

Crazyhorse1 makes the war crimes statement, you follow with the chopping heads off comment, and the cycle starts again - they did this, well we did this, but only because they did this etc...

Strangely, Crazyhorse1 and you took my comment the same way, so maybe you aren't too far from seeing eye to eye .

[chomerics]

Strangely, Crazyhorse1 and you took my comment the same way, so maybe you aren't too far from seeing eye to eye .

I thought the same thing :laugh:

[SUNSTONE]

You didn't take me the right way.

Crazyhorse1 makes the war crimes statement, you follow with the chopping heads off comment, and the cycle starts again - they did this, well we did this, but only because they did this etc...

Strangely, Crazyhorse1 and you took my comment the same way, so maybe you aren't too far from seeing eye to eye .

They will continue cutting heads off wether we torture or not.

So the only thing that following the rules would do is cause more POW's to lose their heads.

[chomerics]

Bear, that article was very, VERY disturbing. I really did not think we were still making people disappear, and completely torturing them like that. I read your other article as well, and I will say that I am very suprised we are doing this stuff, it is completely against our government policies. I am really suprised some of this stuff got out, and was not kept under raps.

Wouldn't that leak promote an investegation as well?

[chomerics]

So the only thing that following the rules would do is cause more POW's to lose their heads.

Who can argue with that logic :doh:

Please try to expand on this statement, because I really don't think you meant to say that.

[SUNSTONE]

Who can argue with that logic :doh:

Please try to expand on this statement, because I really don't think you meant to say that.

Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?

Use your head.

[chomerics]

Does the word "duh" mean anything to you?

Use your head.

So you actually think, that America by NOT torturing people will cause MORE of own soldiers who are captured to be tortured????

I asked you once, because I though you made a mistake. . . and to be honest with you, I really didn't think you meant what you wrote, because I never thought people could come to that conclusion rationally, so I am interested in your logic.

Can you please explain your rationale, how do you get from if we don't torture their POWs, then they will torture our POWs more? I am being completely serious in my question, because I am simply astonished that anyone can think like this.

[SUNSTONE]

So you actually think, that America by NOT torturing people will cause MORE of own soldiers who are captured to be tortured????

I asked you once, because I though you made a mistake. . . and to be honest with you, I really didn't think you meant what you wrote, because I never thought people could come to that conclusion rationally, so I am interested in your logic.

Can you please explain your rationale, how do you get from if we don't torture their POWs, then they will torture our POWs more? I am being completely serious in my question, because I am simply astonished that anyone can think like this.

What is the purpose of torturing?

To get information.

They are not torturing our soldiers, they are beheading them. Big difference.

Why would they torture our soldiers for info?

Terrorists: "Tell us where your armys are, or else we will torture you."

Soldier: "Duh! They're right outside your front door all up in your face! We arent' the ones hiding, you guys are."

[nelms]

What is the purpose of torturing?

To get information.

They are not torturing our soldiers, they are beheading them. Big difference.

Why would they torture our soldiers for info?

Terrorists: "Tell us where your armys are, or else we will torture you."

Soldier: "Duh! They're right outside your front door all up in your face! We arent' the ones hiding, you guys are."

:laugh:

Most libs fail to realize that it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE DON'T DO. A TERRORIST IS A TERRORIST. THEY WANT TO KILL US NO MATTER WHAT. WHY IS THAT SO EFF'ING HARD TO UNDERSTAND? ahem ... ahem.. excuse me. <rant off>

[chomerics]

What is the purpose of torturing?

To get information.

They are not torturing our soldiers, they are beheading them. Big difference.

Why would they torture our soldiers for info?

Terrorists: "Tell us where your armys are, or else we will torture you."

Soldier: "Duh! They're right outside your front door all up in your face! We arent' the ones hiding, you guys are."

You didn't answer my initial question.

How do you come to the decision, which YOU claimed. . . TWICE that if we do NOT torture their POWs, then they will torture our POWs MORE?

You said this two times, I asked you the question twice because I didn't think you meant it. How do you come to this conclusion???