Nancy Pelosi is not the subject of this thread. Start one about her if you wish. Please try to include at least a little more content than you did in the above post. :roll:
I never thought that waterboarding wasnt torture becuase it certainly isnt fun. My question for mancow would be this: After experiencing it, do you still believe it should be an option in any emergency situation.
The heavy debates that rage on this forum about the subject turn into more bashing then anything else.
Personally, this is all about public knowledge. I know I dont want my government proclaiming to the world the exact tactics they use for interrogation and I certainly dont want torture (say torture as defined by the Geneva Convention) to be a policy, but its obvious that the government wont be giving up its option to take whatever action they deem neccesary in those emergency moments. Just take Obama's own actions. The administration is reserving the right to take the actions they deem neccesary, so in their eyes, they feel that in an emergency situation it may require extrordinary measures.
Now take that for what you will, that can be intereperated alot of ways based on your opinions of Obama, etc, but it leaves the door open for the future.
As much as you may be for or against the practice, if you put yourself in the shoes of the president (Obama, Bush, whoever), it seems that things become alot less clear.
x Infinity.
I'd ask Mancow a different question however: After being waterboarded, do you feel a high value detainee, one who has a very high likelyhood of terrorist activities, and one who is being totally uncooperative with his interrogators (which would be expected), would be more or less willing to talk after being waterboarded? I.e. would it cut through his/her BS.
I seriously doubt Mancow would be saying, No. Apperantly the DNI agrees.
/thread
Chuck
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Once you concede it's torture, there are no extenuating circumstances that allow torture to be legally used, even in an "emergency." Read the Convention against Torture. You ban all torture as a matter of policy and law and human dignity. Now, if a guy has knowledge of a nuke about to go off, we will do what we need to do to get that information, and we will then deal with the consequences of whatever action we take. Something tells me that were that never-yet-happened situation to occur, waterboarding would not be high on the list of things we would do to the person.
Regardless, it still doesn't make whatever action we would take in that situation legal, nor do we take the most extreme scenario imaginable and base our policy around it.
What part of ILLEGAL under U.S. and International laws and treaties to which we are signatories do you not understand?
Why do you think that is so? :roll:
The US has always (and probably will always) overreact when threatened. The difference between past overreactions (Japanese-American detention camps) and the current overreaction is that we used to admit our mistakes. Now, however, the right wants to defend our misdeeds and even enhance our ability to commit them in the future. That's disturbing.
I dont know if you were refering to my reply with that last line, but I clearly pointed out that it should not be our 'policy' to do such things. I also agree that it doesnt make it legal, but that wasnt the point. Those emergency scenarios you describe are exactly why President Obama is leaving his options open and I cant fault him for that. Its up to him to decide what warrants action in that manner. Its this discretion that has gotten the Bush administration in trouble becuase many do not think the situation warranted such actions.
While i have my own thoughts on torture, etc, when I try to think about this in terms of 9/11 and the situation that existed, I have a hard time judging the discretion that was used.
Originally posted by: Harvey
What part of ILLEGAL under U.S. and International laws and treaties to which we are signatories do you not understand?
Why do you think that is so? :roll:
I never questioned the reason why it was illegal.....
Now wait a minute, my point was that Obama seems to agree with the power of discretion the Bush administration used even if he publicly denounces the tactics used. The easy answer would be for Obama to reject the notion that an administration should have such power to decide to do something like that and make specific rules to block that. He hasnt, he has chosen to leave that open, so this isnt just a republican issue, its an issue for both sides.
On another point, how long did it take the US government to publically admit the mistakes made during WWII? Im unfortunately not well versed on the specifics, so I dont know, but in my experience, the government is slow to make such statements. not saying that makes it right of course.
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Harvey
What part of ILLEGAL under U.S. and International laws and treaties to which we are signatories do you not understand?
Why do you think that is so? :roll:
I never questioned the reason why it was illegal.....
The statement I quoted and that you reposted that "it seems that things become alot less clear" specifically questions the rationale behind why torture is illegal.
There is no "debate," and nothing "alot [sic] less clear." Torture is illegal because the majority of the people in the U.S. and the vast majority of the civilized world have agreed that torture is unacceptable, inhuman behavior that should not be tolerated ever, anywhere, any time. Those who posit that such a "debate" exists, or that it should exist, or that there is ever any justification for it, have already sacrificed their ethics, their morals and their very humanity.
When did the Obama administration "reserve the right" to use tactics such as waterboarding? Did we opt out of the Geneva convention? Did we strike down existing US law?
Our own laws and international laws are the specific rules that block the use of these tactics.
dali71
Golden Member
- Oct 1, 2003
- 1,117
- 21
- 81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Harvey
What part of ILLEGAL under U.S. and International laws and treaties to which we are signatories do you not understand?
Why do you think that is so? :roll:
I never questioned the reason why it was illegal.....
The statement I quoted and that you reposted that "it seems that things become alot less clear" specifically questions the rationale behind why torture is illegal.
There is no "debate," and nothing "alot [sic] less clear." Torture is illegal because the majority of the people in the U.S. and the vast majority of the civilized world have agreed that torture is unacceptable, inhuman behavior that should not be tolerated ever, anywhere, any time. Those who posit that such a "debate" exists, or that it should exist, or that there is ever any justification for it, have already sacrificed their ethics, their morals and their very humanity.
The majority of the people in the U.S.? Think again:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...te-torture-techniques/
From the article:
"Six in ten people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday believe that some of the procedures, such as water boarding, were a form of torture, with 36 percent disagreeing.
But half the public approves of the Bush administration's decision to use of those techniques during the questioning of suspected terrorists, with 50 percent in approval and 46 percent opposed.
"Roughly one in five Americans believe those techniques were torture but nonetheless approve of the decision to use those procedures against suspected terrorists," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That goes a long way toward explaining why a majority don't want to see former Bush officials investigated."
Fifty-seven percent of those questioned don't want Congress to investigate Bush officials who authorized those harsh interrogation procedures, with 42 percent calling for action by lawmakers. Fifty-five percent also don't want a similar investigation by an independent panel.
Investigations of the military and intelligence personnel who actually used those techniques during interrogations are even less popular. Nearly two out of three Americans don't want Congress to investigate the who carried out those procedures. Fifty-five percent don't want a similar investigation by an independent panel."
I need to find the reports about that. Ill put up some links to them. I remember it wasnt some well publisized issue, more of part of his many statements about the practices where he also mentioned that the administration reserved the discretion to protect Americans when threatened. Now, im not saying that means they will use tactics like waterboarding, just going by the words he used.
Basically, I would hope that since the Bush Administration created rules governing the tactics, then Obama would want to create rules specifically barring the use of such tactics by any government body. Maybe they already have, I just havent heard anything official. But if so, then I give him kudos for backing up his words.
Oh I see what your saying. I wasnt trying to question why its illegal, I know why it is. I was trying to point out that presidents have to make some very serious decisions when emergencies arise and that the pressure of those situations must make a person question thier views. I know it would weigh heavily on me at those times, how could it not affect anyone having to make a choice to do something or not do something that could cost lives.
Again, not trying to say that excuses anything, but its obvious Obama, like every president, has to weigh those same issues.
I get it that for you, its a closed book, and from our perspective, it is. Its illegal and thats that. As far as public opinion in this country, I have no idea what the majority thinks, but that doesnt matter right? I mean regardless of popular opinion, that shouldnt effect wether it is illegal or not right?
It's fine if you decide you need to break the law out of urgency or necessity and argue mitigating circumstances at your trial.
But it is foolish to suggest that laws and treaties are ignorable as policy as people like Cheney and some Justice Dept. lawyers have argued.
But it is foolish to suggest that laws and treaties are ignorable as policy as people like Cheney and some Justice Dept. lawyers have argued.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I believe he frequently states that he will do everything in his power to keep America safe. I don't see how that can be read as keeping open his options to perform illegal activities.
As to outlawing "enhanced interrogation" he signed an executive order less than 48 hours after being sworn in ending those practices.
We have a Constitution and a body of laws that define how our laws can be changed. Nowhere in that body of work is "popular opinion" listed as one of the criteria.
We also have a body of centuries of human history. For many of the last century, those who committed torture and were caught were tried, convicted and in some cases, executed for committing crimes defined as torture, including waterboarding.
If we ever sink to the point where torture is deemed to be legal, it will be time to find a new country because the United States of America that I know will no longer exist.
Ah ok, well that does make it clear then. In the executive order, did it just end specific practices or did it outlaw anything not spelled out as permissable in say the Geneva convention?
As far as the statement, your probably right, I knew it wasnt anything that would say he would entertain the use of such tactics. All i know is that any government is capable of doing things we would normally find offensive. I just hope that if they are barring themselves from doing such things, that they follow through on that.
you were the one that said the majority of people in the US agreed that torture was unacceptable, not me, I was just reacting to that part of your reply. If you meant our constitution then thats fine, but it sounding like you meant popular opinion. It would be nice if we as a country would embrace the Constitution on more than just this issue.
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Harvey
What part of ILLEGAL under U.S. and International laws and treaties to which we are signatories do you not understand?
Why do you think that is so? :roll:
I never questioned the reason why it was illegal.....
The statement I quoted and that you reposted that "it seems that things become alot less clear" specifically questions the rationale behind why torture is illegal.
There is no "debate," and nothing "alot [sic] less clear." Torture is illegal because the majority of the people in the U.S. and the vast majority of the civilized world have agreed that torture is unacceptable, inhuman behavior that should not be tolerated ever, anywhere, any time. Those who posit that such a "debate" exists, or that it should exist, or that there is ever any justification for it, have already sacrificed their ethics, their morals and their very humanity.
The majority of the people in the U.S.? Think again:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...te-torture-techniques/
From the article:
"Six in ten people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday believe that some of the procedures, such as water boarding, were a form of torture, with 36 percent disagreeing.
But half the public approves of the Bush administration's decision to use of those techniques during the questioning of suspected terrorists, with 50 percent in approval and 46 percent opposed.
"Roughly one in five Americans believe those techniques were torture but nonetheless approve of the decision to use those procedures against suspected terrorists," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That goes a long way toward explaining why a majority don't want to see former Bush officials investigated."
Fifty-seven percent of those questioned don't want Congress to investigate Bush officials who authorized those harsh interrogation procedures, with 42 percent calling for action by lawmakers. Fifty-five percent also don't want a similar investigation by an independent panel.
Investigations of the military and intelligence personnel who actually used those techniques during interrogations are even less popular. Nearly two out of three Americans don't want Congress to investigate the who carried out those procedures. Fifty-five percent don't want a similar investigation by an independent panel."
At the very least, that poll highlights how divided the country is on "enhanced interrogations". Both sides of the debate should take a step back from their frequently expressed position that the other side is composed of fringe idiots who's viewpoint should be rejected out of hand. Suggesting that the 46% of Americans who are against "enhanced interrogation" hate America and support the terrorists is just as moronic as suggesting that the 50% who approve of that kind of interrogation are bloodthirsty assholes.
That said, while I think it's reasonable for people to debate the MORAL issues surrounding torture, I think it's ridiculous that we're at all interested in what the average Joe Sixpack (or Joe Mouthpiece on TV) thinks of the EFFECTIVENESS of torture. Intelligence is an extremely complex field, the average person can't possibly come up with a reasonable defense of or objection to enhanced interrogation based on how good it is at gathering information. Every time an OP-ED appears in the paper supporting waterboarding, written by someone who's chiefly known for writing OP-EDs, and they cite how effective it is, I think that their primary source must be Jack Bauer...because what else are they basing their opinion on?
Ultimately that's the problem with the public part of this debate, it's being argued by people who can't possibly be expected to know what they are talking about.
Thats a great point. But unfortunately, there are some that will make thier opinion based on what they have available. they will already have a position regardless of what other information is not released.
I couldnt begin to figure out how the intelligence community really works. so maybe it would be better if both sides took a rest on the subject considering the fact that:
1. We dont have all the information
2. Each side has personal/moral/etc reasons for their position that would not be effected by whatever info is not known.
Of course, this is a forum, and we all know how popular wild debates with no end are
Technically Harvey is right about public opinion of torture. According to the poll posted, and assuming everyone who thinks "enhanced interrogation" is NOT torture also supports using that kind of interrogation, only 14% of Americans think that "enhanced interrogation" is torture AND that it's OK for us to use it. Or to rephrase the article about the poll, of the people who think what's being discussed is torture at all, 80% of them don't think we should be doing it. Basically, very few people actually support torture, it's just a lot of people are willing to use the justification that "waterboarding isn't torture".
Which I think is kind of an interesting point. For all the talk of being tough on terrorism and doing whatever it takes to protect American lives, the majority of people who support waterboarding are unwilling to make the ethical leap of actually calling it torture, instead preferring softer terms like "enhanced interrogation". If it really was about the terrorists being totally evil and protecting American lives being the only important factor, I don't see the problem with calling the techniques used to interrogate terrorists torture. The fact that people don't seem comfortable with this seems to indicate a certain level of cognitive dissonance. They want the (assumed) safety that comes from using torture to obtain information, yet they don't want to fully support the idea. Fuzzy phrases like "enhanced interrogation", or ridiculous comparisons to frat boy bullshit, allow people to support the actions without being tainted with the ethical problems that go along with torturing prisoners.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter