Wait, why are we even debating with conservatives over torture anyway? We could end the debate easily.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
So when my brother was dunking me in the swimming pool I was being tortured? Time to call the feds! :)

Ah, the Rush Limbaugh 'torture for fun' argument of ignorance and apologism.

First, do you condemn our WWII leaders as murderers for making fun waterboarding a capital crime in WWII?

Second, why do you think that every right-wing proponent of the 'war on terror' who I have seen get waterboarded in the safest of conditions say it's torture?

Christopher Hitchens has been a war provocateur going around calling for support for the 'war on terror'. says in an article titles "Believe Me, It?s Torture"

Link

...if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

If you read the article, you will see that he is fully aware of and sympathetic to the arguments in favor of waterboarding - yet he reaches this conclusion.

Hitchens acknowledges that waterboarding is not as bad as some other forms of torture, usually not - but sometimes - leaving permanent physical harm.

Yet he still says the above.

I notice Sean Hannity has not accepted Keith Olbermann's offer for $1,000 a second, and the right to say he knows first-hand how fun waterboarding is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I personally struggle with the morality and immorality of this incredibly 'gray' issue. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thanks Fern.

I can imagine you would fantasizing the issue is remotely gray. Torture is wrong, period, no ifs ands or buts.
Look...I can see both sides of the arguments and struggle with it...sorry if that bothers you.

How do you call struggling with the issue when Fern hands you a totally specious argument and you go for it as some profound insight when it is clearly junk. You struggle because you are torn between your conscience and your fear. There is no moral ambiguity here. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If you torture you are as worthless as you feel the person you torture is. You torture evil for the good and that IS evil. Evil blows up buildings with innocent people in them because they deserve it. They are on the same side as evil and deserve to die. You torture, you are as deluded and psychotic as any other monster who justifies his actions on the basis of the evil of the other. You and the terrorist become one and the same being. Your ego fears. It doesn't want to be moral.

It is the same dilemma over and over. Free speech unless it offends us. Freedom, but not to burn the flag. It is endless, the exceptions we make because we have no real convictions or moral understanding. Always the coward leaves himself an out.
Again...I see it differently than you. If you equate being a pragmatist with being cowardly...then so be it. To me...this all boils down to the point where harsh interogation ends and 'torture' begins. To you...this is black and white regardless of circumstances. To me...it's gray as hell and highly dependent on circumstances. I believe it would be cowardly to allow innocent people to die, suffer, or be maimed for life so that we can take to the moral high ground on a very debatable issue (i.e. waterboarding).

Bottom line...Obama needs to release all the interrogation records to the light of day...we need to know right now if there's any validity to Cheney's arguments. To you that may not matter...but to me it matters greatly because I'm an admitted pragmatist (ergo 'coward') and I want to know for sure if innocent lives were saved or not...kind of funny that I would actually care about that...being the deluded psychotic monster that I am.

What you will never know is what could have been learned without torturing people. And do me a favor. Don't torture anybody to save me. I don't want to live as a citizen of a country of swine who torture or be one of citizens who are such cowards they would demand torture in their name. You have the all clear to be a real human being from me. I don't know how you imagined me to be so worthless as to wish you would torture in my name. I have a bad temper and would prosecute you for it if I can.

If you want to do something for me, work to make the world a place where becoming a terrorist would be the farthest thing from anybody's mind.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
There's a BIG difference between torture as an individual decision, and as a national policy. IF some individual has managed to get a hold of a high value suspect, and CHOOSES to sacrifice his own soul and legal standing in order to attempt to extract information to save people, based on his own personal moral scale, that's his choice. I think it's possible to respect his choice while simultaneously bringing him up on charges for his actions.

It is NEVER permissible to have such actions be policy however, or there is NOTHING left worth defending from the terrorists anyway. If that costs me my life, the life of my family, or 1,000,000 other people, then it was a cheaply won ethical victory.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
There's a BIG difference between torture as an individual decision, and as a national policy. IF some individual has managed to get a hold of a high value suspect, and CHOOSES to sacrifice his own soul and legal standing in order to attempt to extract information to save people, based on his own personal moral scale, that's his choice. I think it's possible to respect his choice while simultaneously bringing him up on charges for his actions.

It is NEVER permissible to have such actions be policy however, or there is NOTHING left worth defending from the terrorists anyway. If that costs me my life, the life of my family, or 1,000,000 other people, then it was a cheaply won ethical victory.

Yup, so long as you are fully prepared and expect to go to prison, the policy should be a secret that you will die there and and be buried with a new life like in witness protection.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: spacejamz

Were you home schooled or something??? Every historical reference I have seen you post here has been twisted sevens ways to Sunday to fit your point of view...

That's pretty funny. Predicting lack of facts to back up youru nonsense in 3... 2... 1...

(Here's a hint for you: when you are twisted, the truth sounds twisted).

I personally loved the one you did recently about the Brits showing restraint during the Battle Of Britain by not bombing German civilian populations. Had you done your homework, you would have known that Britain was not in position to mount such attacks, but when the tide changed, they firebombed the crap out several German cities, reducing them to rubble. Probably left that out of your post since it didn't fit your agenda though.

And if you had a clue, you would understand that you are misrepresenting what I said and the quote I posted from Churchill - and you might have a cluee how I have regularly discussed and condemned the excessive firebombing by allies in WWII, and how I've pointed out that Robert McNamara himself, who worked with Curtis LeMay on the US's firebombing, has said they knew it was a war crime they'd be hung for, fi they weren't exonerated by winning the war. Instead, we won and hung people for waterboarding.

(Edit: Oy, ya, now I remember the posts more clearly. I posted the quote from Churchill about how he opposed torture even during that bombing - which you then twist and misrepresent as being about a 'restraint' in *bombing* Germany in return. Your argument about his inability to bomb Germany has nothing to do with what I wrote, which was about his refusal to torture the hundreds of captured Germans he *did* have and could torture.
How very dishonest of you , no wonder I didnt recognize the reference at first.)

Your jacked up views here are no better...your JFK references are a total joke considering he stood his ground and didn't cave to the Soviets, even if it brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

In the interest of the public getting educated, I sometimes bother to inform the ignorant - while your post is impudent, it did not cross the line on incivility, so:

JFK was in relative terms a flaming peace-loving liberal on the Soviets. The cold war to that point had been a set of highly bellicose policies by the US - so bellicose that even Churchill had told us how wrong we were to be creating unnecessary and wrong tensions, and he was very disappointed in the US policies. Talk of 'detente' did not exist, really, before JFK; the 'liberal' policy was to surround them militarily (including the Jupiter missiles we were placing on their border in Turkey); the conservative position was a first strike.

As in, a first nuclear strike, which had many advocates up to senior military leaders. These people had a countdown for the window in which we should use our monopoly on nuclear weapons by havig a one-sided nuclear war against the Soviets before they got the bomb; but they had not given up by JFK's time.

What was the culture like? The same Curtis LeMay who had led the firebombing in WWII was now the head of the Air Force - and the keeper of the nuclear war plans. When JFK became president and appointed LeMay's former aide McNamra Secretary of Defense, no civilian in the Pentagon or government had ever seen the war plans, which LeMay viewed as his personal domain. McNamara, his boss as Secretary of Defense, told LeMay he wanted to see the plans. LeMay told him to get stuffed, they were none of his business. McNamra had to get a direct order from the President to LeMay to get access to look at the plans. JFK thought LeMay was insane. This was the culture of the time.

JFK had a public posture, in a time of cold war, based on 'strength', and he was indeed a real enemy of Soviet Communism, which he believed as I do to be an oppressive government. But JFK had a better understanding, and he liberalized our policy in everything from reversing his predecessor's virtually unconditional support for European colonization of the third world to supporting the independance of third-world nations; while the previous policy had been to reject 'neutral' leaders for right-wing tyrants who would align with us, he preferred the 'neutral leaders'; he pushed the first arms control treaty, the atmospheric test ban, over the sdtrong opposition of the military - which he considered his greatest policy; he constantly spoke of peace with the Soviets, and just as he softened our then very racist nation, following a century of racism after slavery ended, to its modern and changed view, he worked to soften our nation's then black and white hatred of the Soviets to one that called for understanding and peaceful co-existence, softening the nation to peace. He titled the compilationof his speeches while President 'The Strategy of Peace', showing as usual his combination of the politically 'strong' word strategy with his agenda of peace. He said te JCS were 'nuts' and worked arund them - creating the Defense Intelligence Agency to undermine their monopoly on military intelligence (an excellent history of this is in the book "House of War" by the son of the man who founded the agency), and creating the position for Maxwell Taylor as his personal military advisor.

He resisted the constant demand for war in Vietnam by the military, which his own aides were sympathetic to, with great effort - and planned for the option of withdrawal by 1965, laying the groundwork with his symbolic withdrawal, reversig the buildup, of 1,000 of the 16,000 'military advisors' in 1963.

He made a historic speech on the relationship with the USSR in 1963, at American University, which many consider his finest speech - and one of its most rominent fans was the Chairmann of the USSR, Kruschev, who had been so bellicose and pushing war policies Kennedy's first year - the man who instigated the Cuban Missile Crisis - who camew to see kennedy as someone who he could work with on peace instead. While the normal policy was to block the publication of US speeches in the USSR, he ordered Kenneyd's speech to be aired nationally unedited and called it the greatest speech by an American President in decades. The speech was a call for an entirely new view of relations with the Socie Union, to replace the war culture with one for tolerance and peace and finding common interests. It was revolutionary in terms of the cold war.

Indeed, Kennedy's top aide and speechwriter, who had worked with him on that speech like all his important addresses since his first year as a Senator, was a liberal conscientous objector, Ted Sorenson - who also saw the Soviets as a tyranny, but saw the beenfits of peace as well.

As Sorenson summarizes, JFK never had the US military drop one bomb on an enemy or deployed one combat troop.

Even if you look at the most prominent crisis for JFK's suppsed right-wing bona fides, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the story is that he was the anti-war liberal. The unanimous reaction of the US military leadership was to invade Cuba - and nearly all of Kennedy's own aides said the same. It was Kennedy who held them off, who instead chose the less military policy of the blockade - and who, knowing that people like you needed to be sold on a warlike message, made a secret deal with the Soviets that we would, if the deal were kept secret, remove the missiles from Turkey the Soviets objected to. It was he who used back channels to write with enemies like Kruschev so his own government did not see thier discussions about how they both had pro-war consituencies and militaries pressuring them and conspiring with each other against their own militaries.

It was learned decades later that the Soviets in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and the authorization to use them against a US invasion- JFK likely prevented nuclear war but not realize that. JFK *did* have one 'cold war' policy the right can agree with - he supported the US having a strong arsenal as a 'tool of peace'. Under his leadership, it would be used as such. Unfortunately, not so much under others - including his direct successor's, as LBJ, who had long been far more pro-Diem than Kenedy, once absurdly calling him "the Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia", reversed kennedy's Vietnam policy and started a war.

JFK was a flamiing liberal by the cold war's standards, his policies constantly pushing for peace and liberalization of policies and reversal of right-wing policies. When Chavez of Venezuela was attacked for his 'radical left-wing land reforms', he was able to say he was merely implementing the rrefors JFK hadd called for in Venezuela.

It was JFK who said things to defend the liberalization of policy such as that "those who refuse to allow peaceful revolution make violent revolution inevitable", and 'if we cannot help the many who are poor, we cannot save the few who ar rich'. He paid great political costs with our allies for these policies.

One last note on his relations with our military, this great right-wing leader you claim - he believed he was one step from the risk of a coup by the military against him, the relations were so cold (you can read more on their mutual disrespect based on the released secret recordings of his meetings with them and some things they'd say behind his back - they were inappropriately disrespectful, not knowing they were on tape). He thiought the coup scenario in the novel "Seven Days in May" was plausible against him, and he got the novel made into a movie to send a warning to the military and the nation.

Need I go on to his firing of the previous leadership of the CIA, his famous quote he'd like to cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind?

Finally, I'll add a note that JFK was a 'strong' leader; he was contemtuous of some 'liberals' of his day. He did not have ahigh opinion of, for example, Adlai Stevenson; he was known to say that no one in the State Department had balls, but no one in the Pentagon had a brain. But his being a strong leader does not mean a right-wing leader. As I said, his policies were largely 'radically liberal' for the times, in the context of the huge threats and pressures our nation faced.

I suggest you both read and listen to his American University speech, to understand hs views.

Here is a link.

You apparently have missed when I've mentioned that JFK is a hobby, and I have a 'JFK liberary' of hundreds of books with his history. You, I suspect, have not spent decades reviewing his presidency as I have, as you post that you assume your ill-informed opinions are right - while you fail to investigate or verify the facts in my posts before you post statements.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Phokus
I'm ripping these links from Glenn Greenwald's site http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...5/01/shifts/index.html

Here, let me give you an example. Here's Charles Krauthamer giving us his disgusting justification for torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . . Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen

You know how conservatives like to venerate Ronald Reagan as the Patron Saint of the conservative movement? Even HE believed that there was NEVER a justification for torture EVER. The treaty he signed compels us to prosecute torture. Not only that, but we are also required to extradite torturers to other countries for prosecution if we don't do it ourselves! So Spain, when you're ready, we'll GIVE you bush and cheney. Funny how conservatives all hang onto Ronny's words and ideals... except this one huh?

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:

http://findarticles.com/p/arti..._n2137_v88/ai_6742034/

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.


Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

And liberals believe Ronald Reagan was a flaming idiot. So does that disqualify you from using him to make your argument? So yeah its funny how conservatives hang on to Reagan's sayings except for one, just as you dismiss all his sayings except for one? How is that any different?

I don't think most conservatives agree with Reagan 100% of the time. I certainly don't. I think he allowed spending to go up too much in certain areas.. of course there were reasons why that happened. Reagan was also not facing 9/11 terror events in 1980.

If Clinton supported torture would you suddenly support it? I don't know what his opinion on it was during his Presidency, although I am sure he is 'against' it now.

I would hope that sane people understand that actions that we condemn others for are not justified because we do them, not because of patriotism, not for any reason what so ever.

We're supposed to be the ones who fix things, make things that are wrong right, this war is FAR beyond national security, has been for over six years now, it's just retarded idiots who listen to the talking points that don't get that.

Truth is, GW took all the troops OUT of the WOT, put them into prisons, they were tortured and killed, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY were released because they were innocent, not ONE of them guilty of anything.

If we're going to knee jerk enemy combatants, sure thing, you are one of them, you support the Taliban and their efforts through your support for actions that has made them GAIN support.

Waterbording, beaten to a pulp or plain death, no trial, but you did get a charge, that is more than what 93 people who died in custody got. BE FUCKING HAPPY!

I'm so fucking disgusted by you and your sort of people who think you are patriots while undermining the effort of your troops, you should just be shut up for good.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Phokus
-snip-
that there was NEVER a justification for torture EVER. The treaty he signed compels us to prosecute torture.

Those of you asserting the "no torture ever rule" continue to cite the GC (as in the OP's links). It would behoove you to read it.

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

See the above bolded section. I.e., acts that otherwise qualify as "torture" are permissable if performed "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK. Wow! How do you rconcile that?




Fern

Your bolded doesn't say what I think you think it says...

Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2004) says that you can't use the "Lawful sanctions" provision to circumvent the intent of CAT.

When the Senate considered
7 the CAT, its concern over the CAT's reference to "lawful
8 sanctions" led it to qualify its ratification with the
9 understanding that a state "could not through its domestic
10 sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to
11 prohibit torture." 136 Cong. Rec. 36,198 (1990).

Everyones favorite source

Edit: The problem with CAT is that I think it is "Non Self Executing" which means that additional domestic legislation would have to be put into effect by Congress in order for any of the internationally ratified Laws to have any teeth.

I think some articles of CAT are self executing...and some Articles aren't.

see this: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32438.pdf which I think is the best source I have found to date to get a better understanding of the torture debate. Essentially the US is saying that torture is torture unless it meets certain conditions. Basically TLCs argument from previous threads.

which I find legally to be dubious at best, morally to be complete and utter bullshit.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
you should just be shut up for good.

Now there's a true patriot. Shut those up who disagree with you. Would you outright murder them? Cut out their tongues (torture?) or something else?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I am so sick of hearing the "ticking bomb" argument. I still contend that those that use it are fair weather patriots that support our country's high ideals only when it is convenient.

You can't have it both ways. There is no moral purity in supporting human rights only when it is easy.

The true measure of a man or a country is gauged by how that man or country reacts under adversity. You know, when it's easy to abandon your principles.

When I was growing up, many movies were morality tales as well as entertainment. How could not watch a movie like Shane, High Noon, Twelve Angry Men, or To Kill a Mocking Bird and not be inspired by men doing the right thing when it seemed impossible. Likewise, you sneered at those that caved in and abandoned their principles out of fear, expediency, or just because it was hard to take a stand.

So folks, let's line up. Truth, justice and the American way all of the time and forever over here, you sometimes, occasionally, when convenient, and only if it is easy, over there.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
you should just be shut up for good.

Now there's a true patriot. Shut those up who disagree with you. Would you outright murder them? Cut out their tongues (torture?) or something else?

Look son, i'm so tired of all of you wannabe patriots who shits a brick when someone hangs your flag upside down and act like you actually help your nation by spreading nothing but bullsheit.

I can tell you this much, if someone hung the Union Jack upside down, i wouldn't even notice. ;)

Seriously, it's hard to tell if you are sarcastic, very very young or just plain daft.

I suppose it's for us to wonder and you to know... or at least contemplate depending on the answer.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Phokus
-snip-
that there was NEVER a justification for torture EVER. The treaty he signed compels us to prosecute torture.

Those of you asserting the "no torture ever rule" continue to cite the GC (as in the OP's links). It would behoove you to read it.

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

See the above bolded section. I.e., acts that otherwise qualify as "torture" are permissable if performed "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK. Wow! How do you rconcile that?




Fern

Your bolded doesn't say what I think you think it says...

Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2004) says that you can't use the "Lawful sanctions" provision to circumvent the intent of CAT.

When the Senate considered
7 the CAT, its concern over the CAT's reference to "lawful
8 sanctions" led it to qualify its ratification with the
9 understanding that a state "could not through its domestic
10 sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to
11 prohibit torture." 136 Cong. Rec. 36,198 (1990).

Everyones favorite source

Edit: The problem with CAT is that I think it is "Non Self Executing" which means that additional domestic legislation would have to be put into effect by Congress in order for any of the internationally ratified Laws to have any teeth.

I think some articles of CAT are self executing...and some Articles aren't.

see this: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32438.pdf which I think is the best source I have found to date to get a better understanding of the torture debate. Essentially the US is saying that torture is torture unless it meets certain conditions. Basically TLCs argument from previous threads.

which I find legally to be dubious at best, morally to be complete and utter bullshit.

Thanks for that response to Fern. I'd considered the same point, and you made it better than I'd considered doing.

His position is silly, pretending that the agreement nullifies itself if any nation decides to legalize torture.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I am so sick of hearing the "ticking bomb" argument. I still contend that those that use it are fair weather patriots that support our country's high ideals only when it is convenient.

You can't have it both ways. There is no moral purity in supporting human rights only when it is easy.

The true measure of a man or a country is gauged by how that man or country reacts under adversity. You know, when it's easy to abandon your principles.

When I was growing up, many movies were morality tales as well as entertainment. How could not watch a movie like Shane, High Noon, Twelve Angry Men, or To Kill a Mocking Bird and not be inspired by men doing the right thing when it seemed impossible. Likewise, you sneered at those that caved in and abandoned their principles out of fear, expediency, or just because it was hard to take a stand.

So folks, let's line up. Truth, justice and the American way all of the time and forever over here, you sometimes, occasionally, when convenient, and only if it is easy, over there.

If only it were so easy. I'm probably in the camp of those who argue torture is never justified, but the 'ticking bomb' argument is compelling. Sure, such situations may be rare in real life, but speaking strictly in the theoretical, I can see the utilitarian logic behind it. If you have a bomber in custody, and you know he knows where the bomb is, and you know many innocent lives will be lost if the bomb is not found/defused, it's a tough choice. You can talk about 'moral purity', but most ethicists would agree, there are times when 'evil' acts are necessary or at least acceptable, such as in just wars (assuming you believe any war can be just), or in the protection of your family against harm. Few would argue the pacificist's postion is the only just one.

I also find it interesting that you talk about 'human rights' and 'truth, justice, and the American way', given that this country currently practices capital punishment. Amnesty International has this to say about the death penalty:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.

It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

Do you agree?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Never been a big fan of capital punishment.

All I'm saying is that we should present to the world that we are champions of civilized values, worthy of emulation, or shut the hell up if our principles are conditional. Being the "good guys" part time just doesn't cut it.

An additional point to consider is how many more of our soldiers might die if their opponents are convinced that surrendering might be a bad option if they cannot expect humane treatment. May as well fight to the end instead of giving up and being tortured. In addition to the "emperor loyalty" thing, Japanese commanders in WWII told the troops just how horribly they would be tortured and abused by the Americans if captured. Just a little extra incentive to fight on and kill more of our guys. We marveled in the first Gulf war at how readily so many Iraqis surrendered. Anybody think that would have happened if they thought capture would have resulted in worsening their condition?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
See the above bolded section. I.e., acts that otherwise qualify as "torture" are permissable if performed "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK. Wow!
How do you rconcile that?

-snip-

Fern

Your bolded doesn't say what I think you think it says... (It most certainly does and the case you cite confirms it - se below)

Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2004) says that you can't use the "Lawful sanctions" provision to circumvent the intent of CAT.

When the Senate considered
7 the CAT, its concern over the CAT's reference to "lawful
8 sanctions" led it to qualify its ratification with the
9 understanding that a state "could not through its domestic
10 sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to
11 prohibit torture." 136 Cong. Rec. 36,198 (1990).

-snip-

Thanks for that response to Fern. I'd considered the same point, and you made it better than I'd considered doing.

His position is silly, pretending that the agreement nullifies itself if any nation decides to legalize torture.

From the case you cite:

As two of the CAT's drafters have noted, when it is a public official who inflicts severe pain or suffering, it is only in exceptional cases that we can expect to be able to conclude that the acts do not constitute torture by reason of the official acting for purely private reasons. Burgers & Danelius, supra, at 119.

So even in this case you (and the ACLU) wanna, the court found that - YES - under the GC what is otherwise defined as torture is OK'd if done under lawful sanctions. However, this court 'created' the stipulation that it must be in exceptional cases (wording not found in the GC).

In spite of your stuborness to acknowldge the obvious language of the convention and the public concerns of diplomats about it, you should recognize that this portion of the case is devoted to the issue of 'lawful sanctions' and needed only because of the clear wording of the GC itself and the obvious loophole I have pointed out.

Further, the actions of the Senate in the matter do nothing but confirm my interpretation of the 'lawful sanctions' because they had the exact same interpretation and so took extra measures to clarify their intentions (which are not binding on other nations anyway).

BTW: that case is mosly a referendum (and condemnation) of the Egyption judicial system. Clealry the court had to find some way not to deport the defendent.

In spite of Egypt being a signatory (with ratification) to the Convention against torture for some reason nothing's been done about their ruotine use of extreme torture (we ain't talking just waterboarding in their case either), why might that be?

2nd BTW: You link shows that the US hasn't the ratified the Convention against torture? I'm pretty sure we have.

Fern
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
From the case you cite:

As two of the CAT's drafters have noted, when it is a public official who inflicts severe pain or suffering, it is only in exceptional cases that we can expect to be able to conclude that the acts do not constitute torture by reason of the official acting for purely private reasons. Burgers & Danelius, supra, at 119.

So even in this case you (and the ACLU) wanna, the court found that - YES - under the GC what is otherwise defined as torture is OK'd if done under lawful sanctions. However, this court 'created' the stipulation that it must be in exceptional cases (wording not found in the GC).

Fern you are confusing me. The underlined is saying something completely different than what we are discussing which is torture for reasons OTHER THAN purely private. This is similar to why Police, when caught and charged with police brutality, are not also charged with torture. But that is something different than the torture debate that is currently an issue.

Further, the actions of the Senate in the matter do nothing but confirm my interpretation of the 'lawful sanctions' because they had the exact same interpretation and so took extra measures to clarify their intentions (which are not binding on other nations anyway).
Again I am confused because according to your first post you claimed that in fact the "Lawful Sanctions" provision negated the CAT language on torture policy. The Senate did indeed set stipulations on the CAT language, which conflict with your position wrt to your first post, which I pointed out because your claim is false, "Lawful Sanctions" provision does not negate the CAT language on torture policy. Maybe I misread your first post and your assertions.

just seeking clarification. Thanks in advance.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

As two of the CAT's drafters have noted, when it is a public official who inflicts severe pain or suffering, it is only in exceptional cases that we can expect to be able to conclude that the acts do not constitute torture by reason of the official acting for purely private reasons. Burgers & Danelius, supra, at 119.

-snip-
just seeking clarification. Thanks in advance.

OK, as promised I checked the case (it's just taken awhile as I have been away and offline).

The "by reason of the official acting for purely private reasons" portion indeeds addresses an issue not directly pertinent to our discussion here.

While this is about the CAT and 'torture' it (the quote above) is part of a discussion regarding the 'no rendition' rule.

While testimony had convinced the court that 'torture' would occur to the Egyptian person by Egyptian police the BIA had reasoned (or argued) that it would not be 'official' and thus not covered by the CAT.

The court in this case did not agree for reasons not really relevent here.

(BTW: I wish people would look at this Book which discusses the 'lawful sanctions'. See pages 31 - 34.

For those who don't like my paraphrasing the provision as follows " acts that otherwise qualify as "torture" are permissable if performed "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK" - paraphrase it how you like, but the results are the same.

And it appears that the USA does not recognize the definition of torture as contained in the CAT, instead we use the 'cruel & unusual punishments' definition under the Constitution. I.e., if the CAT says it's 'torture' our position is that it's OK if passing the Constitutional test. )

Fern
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,440
101
91
Fern, that was an excellent post, although I disagree with your conclusions to some extent. I think there are universal standards that can be drawn on what is and is not torture, not the least being something that involves lasting physical or psychological harm.

I'm a conservative and I am against torture in any circumstances. I believe that by torturing somebody we lose the moral high ground. If we argue that "they" (not a specific "they", just anyone that we would ever be in this circumstance with) have to be stopped because they're violating human rights and then we use their own tactics to stop them we have removed all difference between them and us.

Does it sometimes cost lives, even thousands of lives? Yes. But there should never be a threat or a cost that causes us to drop to that level of inhumanity.

It's like the old joke about a man offering a housewife $10 million dollars for sex. She accepts, and he then offers $10. She's offended and says, "what do you think I am, a prostitute?" He answers, "madam, we've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."

We say torture is acceptable if 5,000 lives are at stake. What about if it's 500 lives? Or 10? Or 1? Now we're just haggling over price. Torture is either right or wrong. You can't say that the morality changes because of our expediency. Then we're just haggling over price.

So please, don't group this as "liberals oppose it" and "conservatives support it". There is much more diversity in both parties and ends of the political spectrum than that.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
-snip-
I think there are universal standards that can be drawn on what is and is not torture, not the least being something that involves lasting physical or psychological harm.

Well, that's the problem with the CAT as it now stands.

Unlike other convention on terror, the CAT contains no universal (international in this case) standard on what is torture. Actually it does, but the 'lawful sanctions' clause is such a vague/ambiguous exception that the preceding section of the CAT defining torture is somewhat meaningless.

But without the 'lawful sanctions' clause it is unlikely that the CAT could have ever been implemented - no one wants to give up sovergnty of their domestic criminal judicial systems. Without teh lawful sanction clause, other countries could disagree with your penal code - much like other countries disagree with our 'death penalty' (in fact they could use the CAT's anti-rendition part to refuse extradiction in the case of possible capital murder cases).

Fern
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
-snip-
I think there are universal standards that can be drawn on what is and is not torture, not the least being something that involves lasting physical or psychological harm.

Well, that's the problem with the CAT as it now stands.

Unlike other convention on terror, the CAT contains no universal (international in this case) standard on what is torture. Actually it does, but the 'lawful sanctions' clause is such a vague/ambiguous exception that the preceding section of the CAT defining torture is somewhat meaningless.

But without the 'lawful sanctions' clause it is unlikely that the CAT could have ever been implemented - no one wants to give up sovergnty of their domestic criminal judicial systems. Without teh lawful sanction clause, other countries could disagree with your penal code - much like other countries disagree with our 'death penalty' (in fact they could use the CAT's anti-rendition part to refuse extradiction in the case of possible capital murder cases).

Fern

No it is not, not in the least, not ONE FUCKING BIT!

The US is trying to circumvent what they define as torture and that IS IT!

And it's a fucking disgrace.

"We don't know if you are innocent or guilty, in fact the overwhelming majority of you who are tortured will be set free without charges, those who die will just be dead though, sorry about that, we are the country who believes in justice for every man, except for you"

Fuck you and those like you, you are the most pathetic pieces of shit that have ever roamed this earth.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK" - paraphrase it how you like, but the results are the same.

You are still reading it wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says some pain and suffering is OK. That is different. Not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture. Please quote the part where it says some torture is OK as opposed to pain and suffering incidental to otherwise lawful actions.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I missed that, but Fern, the GC does NOT condone but DOES condemn torture.

In some cases you cannot spare innocents but you can always never torture anyone.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Fern
Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK" - paraphrase it how you like, but the results are the same.

You are still reading it wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says some pain and suffering is OK. That is different. Not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture. Please quote the part where it says some torture is OK as opposed to pain and suffering incidental to otherwise lawful actions.

Look, the best info on this subject (lawful sanctions) is in the book I linked above. Please read it.

You can paraphrase it however you like, but the CAT article sets out a definition of what is torture then goes on to permit it (what are otherwise acts of torture) if done under a country's lawful sanctions.

Paraphrase it how you like, but if acts defined as torture are illegal except when done under lawful sanctions I remain convinced that saying "the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK" is 100% accurate description. They just get around it by saying that he acts don't meet the definition if done under those circumstances (even though the very same act would meet the dfinition of torture if not falling under that exception)

There is no reason for the CAT to say that acts of pain & suffering NOT otherwise constituting torture are OK. That's flat out stupid and is tantamount to a law stating that things that are not illegal are not illegal.

OK, I'll again quote the CAT:

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

I.e., if the acts are legal under the country in question - it's OK. It now 'magically' doesn't meet the definition of torture, even though it otherwise would.

It's a fricken loophole, and one that scholars, diplomats and our US Senate has acknowlegded. (This would be aboundantly clear if you read the link I've already posted twice)

Fern
 

GenHoth

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2007
2,106
0
0
God damn JohnOfSheffield, way to go off half cocked. I'm surprised you haven't realized that Fern is one of the more thoughtful of our P&Nmembers (Perhaps I shouldn't be?) I happen to agree that torture is unacceptable but the way you approach arguments is pathetic. To be honest, it's rather frustrating to hear a voice that could be raised with experiences beyond most of ours instead used to berate others who disagree. You could certainly provide a unique view point but I know that with all of the vitriol you use in almost every post it becomes difficult to listen to what you are actually saying.