-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
White House denies relaxing torture ban
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dahunan
Lifer
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm
Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
April 5, 2006
Attorney General Gonzales:
Suggest This Page to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
Related Material
More on Counterterrorism
Thematic Page
For more on Torture and Abuse
Thematic Page
For more on Detainees and Other U.S. Post 9/11 Policies
Thematic Page
Free Email Newsletter
Contribute to Human Rights Watch
The 2006 Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress in January 2006, contains new provisions clarifying that all individuals acting under the color of U.S. law categorically are prohibited from engaging in or authorizing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. These provisions were passed by Congress to rectify lack of clarity in regard to detention and interrogation techniques, and to prevent conduct that is prohibited by international law and illegal under domestic criminal law.
We are now writing to urge you to issue a clear public statement about specific legal standards applicable to detention and interrogation of detainees overseas, under this legislation and other existing laws. Such a statement is necessary because, notwithstanding the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, you and other administration officials have not yet made clear statements about the specific legal standards applicable to the detention and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. We are concerned that this lack of clarity continues to lead to confusion about the legality of specific interrogation techniques.
We are particularly concerned about your continuing failure to issue clear statements about illegal interrogation techniques, and especially your failure to state that ?waterboarding??a technique that induces the effects of being killed by drowning?constitutes torture, and thus is illegal. We urge you to make such a statement now.
The Convention Against Torture prohibits practices that constitute the intentional infliction of ?severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.? The federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, similarly prohibits acts outside the United States that are specifically intended to cause ?severe physical or mental pain or suffering.?
Waterboarding is torture. It causes severe physical suffering in the form of reflexive choking, gagging, and the feeling of suffocation. It may cause severe pain in some cases. If uninterrupted, waterboarding will cause death by suffocation. It is also foreseeable that waterboarding, by producing an experience of drowning, will cause severe mental pain and suffering. The technique is a form of mock execution by suffocation with water. The process incapacitates the victim from drawing breath, and causes panic, distress, and terror of imminent death. Many victims of waterboarding suffer prolonged mental harm for years and even decades afterward.
Waterboarding, when used against people captured in the context of war, may also amount to a war crime as defined under the federal war crimes statute 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in international armed conflicts), and violations of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions (in non-international armed conflicts). Waterboarding is also an assault, and thus violates the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113, when it occurs in the ?special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,? a jurisdictional area which includes government installations overseas. In cases involving the U.S. armed forces, waterboarding also amounts to assault, and cruelty and maltreatment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Under the laws of the land, U.S. personnel who order or take part in waterboading are committing criminal acts?torture, assault, and war crimes?which are punishable as felony offenses. The Department of Justice should clarify this to all U.S. personnel, and prosecute violations of the law.
We have no doubt that if a captured American were subjected to waterboarding, the U.S. government would condemn this as torture and demand or seek prosecution.
We also urge you to clarify the legality of other abusive interrogation techniques, such as subjection to extreme temperatures, forced standing, binding in stress positions, and severe sleep deprivation. These techniques, like waterboarding, cause physical and mental suffering and are illegal under domestic and international law. At minimum, these techniques amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, categorically prohibited under the 2006 Defense Authorization Act; and they violate U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian laws, including the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Depending on how they are used, these and other abusive techniques can amount to torture, potentially prosecutable under the U.S. torture and war crimes statutes. The U.S. State Department has condemned numerous other countries for utilizing these techniques, in many cases stating that the techniques amount to torture.
As the Attorney General, you have the responsibility to speak clearly on matters of the legal standards for detention and interrogation of prisoners, and as the executive branch's chief legal officer, you are obliged to enforce U.S. laws.
Moreover, you owe it to U.S. military and security personnel, including those who authorize and conduct interrogations, to specify accurately that the techniques described above are not legal. This is vitally important because personnel who rely on advice to the contrary place themselves in legal peril.
We sincerely hope that you will uphold the legal standards discussed above, and make efforts to articulate them clearly and publicly.
Signed,
Richard Abel, UCLA School of Law
Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
Catherine Adcock Admay, Duke University
Madelaine Adelman, Arizona State University
Jose E. Alvarez, Columbia Law School (former attorney-adviser, Department of State)
Paul Amar, University of California-Santa Barbara
Fran Ansley, University of Tennessee College of Law
Michael Avery, Suffolk Law School
Amy Bartholomew, Carleton University
Katherine Beckett, University of Washington
George Bisharat, Hastings College of the Law
Christopher L. Blakesley, William S. Boyd School of Law (UNLV)
Gary Blasi, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
John Charles Boger, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
David Bowker, adjunct, Cardozo Law School (former attorney-adviser, Department of State)
Alice C. Briggs, Franklin Pierce Law Center
John Brigham, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Peter Brooks, University of Virginia
Rosa Brooks, University of Virginia
William T. Burke, University of Washington School of Law
William Burke-White, University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Kitty Calavita, University of California-Irvine
Henry (Chip) Carey, Georgia State University
Anupam Chander, University of California-Davis
Oscar G. Chase, New York University Law School
Kathleen Clark, Washington University
Cornell W. Clayton, Washington State University
Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
John Comaroff, University of Chicago
Michael Comiskey, Pennsylvania State University
Marianne Constable, University of California- Berkeley
Don Crowley, University of Idaho
Scott Cummings, UCLA School of Law
Eve Darian-Smith, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Benjamin Davis, University of Toledo College of Law
Stephen F. Diamond, Santa Clara University School of Law
Hilal Elver, University of California-Santa Barbara
Richard Falk, Princeton University and University of California-Santa Barbara
Thomas G. Field, Jr. Franklin Pierce Law Center
Gregory H. Fox, Wayne State University Law School
Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford University
Michael Froomkin, University of Miami School of Law
David R. Ginsburg, UCLA School of Law
Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, University of Washington
Leslie F.Goldstein, University of Delaware
Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., UCLA Law School
David Greenberg, New York University
Lisa Hajjar, University of California-Santa Barbara
Joel F. Handler, UCLA School of Law
Hendrik Hartog, Princeton University
Lynne Henderson, University of Nevada-Las Vegas
William O. Hennessey, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Richard A. Hesse, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Elisabeth Hilbink, University of Minnesota
Jennifer L. Hochschild, Harvard University
Scott Horton, Adjunct, Columbia Law School
Derek Jinks, University of Texas School of Law
Jerry Kang, UCLA School of Law
Lisa A. Kelly, University of Washington School of Law
Heinz Klug, University of Wisconsin
Itzchak E. Kornfeld, Drexel University
Ariana R. Levinson, UCLA School of Law
Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School
Robert Justin Lipkin, Widener University School of Law
Lynn M. LoPucki, UCLA School of Law
David Luban, Georgetown University Law Center
Deborah Maranville, University of Washington School of Law
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, University of Pennsylvania
Jamie Mayerfeld, University of Washington
Joel Migdal, University of Washington
Martha Minow, Harvard Law School
William W. Monning, Monterrey College of Law
Kathleen M. Moore, University of California-Santa Barbara
Forrest S. Mosten, UCLA School of Law
Ken Mott, Gettysburg College
Stephen R. Munzer, UCLA School of Law
Jyoti Nanda, UCLA School of Law
Smita Narula, New York University School of Law
Julie Novkov, University of Oregon
Frances Olsen, UCLA School of Law
John Orcutt, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Arzoo Osanloo, University of Washington
Jordan J. Paust, University of Houston
William P. Quigley, Loyola University, New Orleans
Christopher J. Peters, Wayne State University Law School
Judith Resnik, Yale Law School
Sandra L. Rierson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Brad R. Roth, Wayne State University
Gary Rowe, UCLA School of Law
Austin Sarat, Amherst College
Margaret L. Satterthwaite, New York University School of Law
Stuart A. Scheingold, University of Washington
Kim Lane Scheppele, Woodrow Wilson School and Princeton University
Benjamin N. Schiff, Oberlin College
David Schultz, Hamline University
Robert A. Sedler, Wayne State University
Barry Shanks, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
Charles Anthony Smith, University of Miami
Eunice Son, UCLA School of Law
Susan Sterett, University of Denver
Jacqueline Stevens, University of California-Santa Barbara
Katherine Stone, UCLA School of Law
Steven Tauber, University of South Florida
Samuel. C. Thompson, Jr, UCLA School of Law
Beth Van Schaack, Santa Clara University School of Law
Andrew Strauss, Widener University School of Law
Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Miami School of Law
Richard Weisberg, Cardozo Law School
Deborah M. Weissman, University of North Carolina School of Law
Burns H. Weston, University of Iowa and Vermont Law School
Adam Winkler, UCLA School of Law
Maryann Zavez, Vermont Law School
Richard O. Zerbe Jr., University of Washington
Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
April 5, 2006
Attorney General Gonzales:
Suggest This Page to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
Related Material
More on Counterterrorism
Thematic Page
For more on Torture and Abuse
Thematic Page
For more on Detainees and Other U.S. Post 9/11 Policies
Thematic Page
Free Email Newsletter
Contribute to Human Rights Watch
The 2006 Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress in January 2006, contains new provisions clarifying that all individuals acting under the color of U.S. law categorically are prohibited from engaging in or authorizing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. These provisions were passed by Congress to rectify lack of clarity in regard to detention and interrogation techniques, and to prevent conduct that is prohibited by international law and illegal under domestic criminal law.
We are now writing to urge you to issue a clear public statement about specific legal standards applicable to detention and interrogation of detainees overseas, under this legislation and other existing laws. Such a statement is necessary because, notwithstanding the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, you and other administration officials have not yet made clear statements about the specific legal standards applicable to the detention and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. We are concerned that this lack of clarity continues to lead to confusion about the legality of specific interrogation techniques.
We are particularly concerned about your continuing failure to issue clear statements about illegal interrogation techniques, and especially your failure to state that ?waterboarding??a technique that induces the effects of being killed by drowning?constitutes torture, and thus is illegal. We urge you to make such a statement now.
The Convention Against Torture prohibits practices that constitute the intentional infliction of ?severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.? The federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, similarly prohibits acts outside the United States that are specifically intended to cause ?severe physical or mental pain or suffering.?
Waterboarding is torture. It causes severe physical suffering in the form of reflexive choking, gagging, and the feeling of suffocation. It may cause severe pain in some cases. If uninterrupted, waterboarding will cause death by suffocation. It is also foreseeable that waterboarding, by producing an experience of drowning, will cause severe mental pain and suffering. The technique is a form of mock execution by suffocation with water. The process incapacitates the victim from drawing breath, and causes panic, distress, and terror of imminent death. Many victims of waterboarding suffer prolonged mental harm for years and even decades afterward.
Waterboarding, when used against people captured in the context of war, may also amount to a war crime as defined under the federal war crimes statute 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in international armed conflicts), and violations of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions (in non-international armed conflicts). Waterboarding is also an assault, and thus violates the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113, when it occurs in the ?special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,? a jurisdictional area which includes government installations overseas. In cases involving the U.S. armed forces, waterboarding also amounts to assault, and cruelty and maltreatment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Under the laws of the land, U.S. personnel who order or take part in waterboading are committing criminal acts?torture, assault, and war crimes?which are punishable as felony offenses. The Department of Justice should clarify this to all U.S. personnel, and prosecute violations of the law.
We have no doubt that if a captured American were subjected to waterboarding, the U.S. government would condemn this as torture and demand or seek prosecution.
We also urge you to clarify the legality of other abusive interrogation techniques, such as subjection to extreme temperatures, forced standing, binding in stress positions, and severe sleep deprivation. These techniques, like waterboarding, cause physical and mental suffering and are illegal under domestic and international law. At minimum, these techniques amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, categorically prohibited under the 2006 Defense Authorization Act; and they violate U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian laws, including the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Depending on how they are used, these and other abusive techniques can amount to torture, potentially prosecutable under the U.S. torture and war crimes statutes. The U.S. State Department has condemned numerous other countries for utilizing these techniques, in many cases stating that the techniques amount to torture.
As the Attorney General, you have the responsibility to speak clearly on matters of the legal standards for detention and interrogation of prisoners, and as the executive branch's chief legal officer, you are obliged to enforce U.S. laws.
Moreover, you owe it to U.S. military and security personnel, including those who authorize and conduct interrogations, to specify accurately that the techniques described above are not legal. This is vitally important because personnel who rely on advice to the contrary place themselves in legal peril.
We sincerely hope that you will uphold the legal standards discussed above, and make efforts to articulate them clearly and publicly.
Signed,
Richard Abel, UCLA School of Law
Bruce Ackerman, Yale University
Catherine Adcock Admay, Duke University
Madelaine Adelman, Arizona State University
Jose E. Alvarez, Columbia Law School (former attorney-adviser, Department of State)
Paul Amar, University of California-Santa Barbara
Fran Ansley, University of Tennessee College of Law
Michael Avery, Suffolk Law School
Amy Bartholomew, Carleton University
Katherine Beckett, University of Washington
George Bisharat, Hastings College of the Law
Christopher L. Blakesley, William S. Boyd School of Law (UNLV)
Gary Blasi, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
John Charles Boger, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
David Bowker, adjunct, Cardozo Law School (former attorney-adviser, Department of State)
Alice C. Briggs, Franklin Pierce Law Center
John Brigham, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Peter Brooks, University of Virginia
Rosa Brooks, University of Virginia
William T. Burke, University of Washington School of Law
William Burke-White, University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Kitty Calavita, University of California-Irvine
Henry (Chip) Carey, Georgia State University
Anupam Chander, University of California-Davis
Oscar G. Chase, New York University Law School
Kathleen Clark, Washington University
Cornell W. Clayton, Washington State University
Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
John Comaroff, University of Chicago
Michael Comiskey, Pennsylvania State University
Marianne Constable, University of California- Berkeley
Don Crowley, University of Idaho
Scott Cummings, UCLA School of Law
Eve Darian-Smith, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Benjamin Davis, University of Toledo College of Law
Stephen F. Diamond, Santa Clara University School of Law
Hilal Elver, University of California-Santa Barbara
Richard Falk, Princeton University and University of California-Santa Barbara
Thomas G. Field, Jr. Franklin Pierce Law Center
Gregory H. Fox, Wayne State University Law School
Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford University
Michael Froomkin, University of Miami School of Law
David R. Ginsburg, UCLA School of Law
Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, University of Washington
Leslie F.Goldstein, University of Delaware
Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., UCLA Law School
David Greenberg, New York University
Lisa Hajjar, University of California-Santa Barbara
Joel F. Handler, UCLA School of Law
Hendrik Hartog, Princeton University
Lynne Henderson, University of Nevada-Las Vegas
William O. Hennessey, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Richard A. Hesse, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Elisabeth Hilbink, University of Minnesota
Jennifer L. Hochschild, Harvard University
Scott Horton, Adjunct, Columbia Law School
Derek Jinks, University of Texas School of Law
Jerry Kang, UCLA School of Law
Lisa A. Kelly, University of Washington School of Law
Heinz Klug, University of Wisconsin
Itzchak E. Kornfeld, Drexel University
Ariana R. Levinson, UCLA School of Law
Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School
Robert Justin Lipkin, Widener University School of Law
Lynn M. LoPucki, UCLA School of Law
David Luban, Georgetown University Law Center
Deborah Maranville, University of Washington School of Law
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, University of Pennsylvania
Jamie Mayerfeld, University of Washington
Joel Migdal, University of Washington
Martha Minow, Harvard Law School
William W. Monning, Monterrey College of Law
Kathleen M. Moore, University of California-Santa Barbara
Forrest S. Mosten, UCLA School of Law
Ken Mott, Gettysburg College
Stephen R. Munzer, UCLA School of Law
Jyoti Nanda, UCLA School of Law
Smita Narula, New York University School of Law
Julie Novkov, University of Oregon
Frances Olsen, UCLA School of Law
John Orcutt, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Arzoo Osanloo, University of Washington
Jordan J. Paust, University of Houston
William P. Quigley, Loyola University, New Orleans
Christopher J. Peters, Wayne State University Law School
Judith Resnik, Yale Law School
Sandra L. Rierson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Brad R. Roth, Wayne State University
Gary Rowe, UCLA School of Law
Austin Sarat, Amherst College
Margaret L. Satterthwaite, New York University School of Law
Stuart A. Scheingold, University of Washington
Kim Lane Scheppele, Woodrow Wilson School and Princeton University
Benjamin N. Schiff, Oberlin College
David Schultz, Hamline University
Robert A. Sedler, Wayne State University
Barry Shanks, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
Charles Anthony Smith, University of Miami
Eunice Son, UCLA School of Law
Susan Sterett, University of Denver
Jacqueline Stevens, University of California-Santa Barbara
Katherine Stone, UCLA School of Law
Steven Tauber, University of South Florida
Samuel. C. Thompson, Jr, UCLA School of Law
Beth Van Schaack, Santa Clara University School of Law
Andrew Strauss, Widener University School of Law
Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Miami School of Law
Richard Weisberg, Cardozo Law School
Deborah M. Weissman, University of North Carolina School of Law
Burns H. Weston, University of Iowa and Vermont Law School
Adam Winkler, UCLA School of Law
Maryann Zavez, Vermont Law School
Richard O. Zerbe Jr., University of Washington
why are we so hung up on technicalities?
Whether deemed "interrogation" or "torture," they're tactics to obtain critical information. While I'm not naive to the fact that some peope will go to the extreme, then instead of all this bashing, we need to collectively come up with a solution. These tactics are done to ultimately save the lives of Americans.
It's easy for us to be bystanders and ask questions such as,"does the end justify the means?" But I believe this is a reasonable question during reasonable times within reasonable parties. It really is a moot point to say, I'm going to take the high road while my enemy is strapping bombs on children to kill my people.
Let's understand war is war people...
Whether deemed "interrogation" or "torture," they're tactics to obtain critical information. While I'm not naive to the fact that some peope will go to the extreme, then instead of all this bashing, we need to collectively come up with a solution. These tactics are done to ultimately save the lives of Americans.
It's easy for us to be bystanders and ask questions such as,"does the end justify the means?" But I believe this is a reasonable question during reasonable times within reasonable parties. It really is a moot point to say, I'm going to take the high road while my enemy is strapping bombs on children to kill my people.
Let's understand war is war people...
Caecus Veritas
Senior member
You sir, are BLIND. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Ghraib?s ex-chief: Kids held at prison
Karpinski says orders directed keeping some captives off books
Updated: 5:36 p.m. PT March 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - Children held by the U.S. Army at Iraq?s Abu Ghraib prison included one boy who appeared to be only about 8 years old, the former commander of the prison told investigators, according to a transcript.
?He told me he was almost 12,? Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski told officials investigating prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. ?He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying.?
?I don?t care if we?re holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We?re winning the war,? Karpinski said
------------------------------------------------
Rather than slinging rhetorics and showing no compromise on ideologies, I sincerely hope you can learn to be more objective and open-minded...
Caecus Veritas
Senior member
according to clinton, sex is defined only by the penetration of a vagina by a penis. cigars and other objects (i.e. mouth) don't count.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Do you have morals? Morality is a good standard for all things. You try to use semantics in place of morality. That is incomprehensible.
That was actually a definition from his sexual harassment trial. But most on the right, and many on the left, disagreed with it.
Is 'touching but not penetration', oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, phone sex, etc. included?
We'll just need to wait for Pabster to tell us the 'cut and dry' definition of sex.
You, sir, are intellectually dishonest. The discussion was about Guantanamo Bay aka GITMO, not Abu Ghraib. Whatever happened or didn't happen with Abu Ghraib is of no relevance to this discussion. I will assume you overlooked this and made an honest mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the discussion.
Let me reiterate: Show me the "farm boys" who are being "tortured" at Gitmo. Seems to me the thugs calling that place home have it pretty damn good.
I generally agree with your premise, but I do agree there is a legitimate debate to be had on "torture". Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time getting anywhere because we've got a bunch of hard left extremists who would probably submit to you that putting a pair of Hanes over one's head was torture.
Dahunan, I thank you for the open letter, but I'm looking for actual legal definition here. Not a bunch of liberal professors' interpretation of such.
The 'federal torture statute' referred to therein is extremely vague. Who is defining "severe" and what encompasses that, again, by law.
Perhaps these statutes need to be updated.
The 'federal torture statute' referred to therein is extremely vague. Who is defining "severe" and what encompasses that, again, by law.
Perhaps these statutes need to be updated.
You're having a hard time, because, unlike civilized, ethical, moral human beings, you're willing to diddle yourself into believing you can ferret out some weasel words that will somehow excuse your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his gang of murderous, torturing thugs from the horrible cimes they've committed while heaping consumate disgrace on whatever honor and good will we once had in the world.
Your Führer and his Gestapo will be so proud of you. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:[/quote]
You're joking, right? Since you failed your ethics classes, you obviously need to be reminded that you don't defeat evil by becoming the evil you claim you want to defeat.
That is precisely what George W. Bush and his gang of murderers, torturers and traitors have done. Are you sure you want to associate yourself with that? :shocked:
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
:thumbsup:
Lemon law
Lifer
I see that GWB is on the air again claiming we really don't torture. Since GWB's nose has not grown, I guess some people still believe him. But its worth pointing out that old moral authority that said its not really torture is no longer AG, and I have to wonder what GWB is going to do when faced with the choice of having his own new AG tell him it really is torture. Which is basically going to happen if GWB wants any AG conformed by the Senate. GWB can always try a recess appointment but that won't last long.
well, i wouldn't call myself the most ethical man nor am I the most educated. But a question I'd propose to you is, how would you go about obtaining information from a terrorist group whose sole intent atleast currently is destroying western civilization?
Also, war in itself is unethical, so wouldn't looking for ethics in war tactics be pretty difficult also?
Caecus Veritas
Senior member
What?!! abu and gitmo having no relevance????!! You do know that BOTH Abu and gitmo are under the JURISDICTION of the United States, right? both facilities are operated by our government. looks to me you're trying to distract the topic of what we're discussing: OUR GOVERNMENT TORTURES WHOEVER THEY WANT TO.
and i assume you know that many prisoners were transferred from abu to guantanamo. The OP also refers to both abu and gitmo. and the article i found was just ONE of many many MANY COUNTLESS documents that YOU can and SHOULD search and find - YES PUBLIC INFORMATION. Why don't you do some search on gitmo and abu on your own(YES, there were boys that were released from gitmo - you can find the story at msnbc if you so choose to do so for your own enlightenment).
seems to me you're just hell bent on continuing to believe whatever you want to believe without doing a search of facts on your own. You are indeed ignorant, prejudiced and bigotted. and incapable of widening your own intellectual horizon.
by your own word:
These thugs you mention have mostly been released without any charge. I hope one day, if ever you are wrongly accused of wrong-doing, you will be faced by a judge and jury someone just like you.
Good day.
Caecus Veritas
Senior member
you do know that most information obtained this way is garbage right? This opinion comes from CIA people that have been involved in this stuff for a vvery very long time.
and on a side note: it is interesting that our CIA operatives were recently trained by egypt and syria in "interrogation tactics", who have had long history of torture.
I'd imagine under the circumstances, people would lie and say whatever to stop the torture. But let's say 1 out of even 10 is legit, then couldn't you say we have that much more chance of saving Americans?
And maybe you're right maybe torture tactics aren't the best way, but again how do we ethically go about obtaining valuable info?
Sometimes I truly think that ignorance is bliss...
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Gloom and doom crap is old. It worked 5 years ago. Not now.
I saw a documentary on the history channel about this German interrogator, who when in custody of American POW's, instead of torturing them (causing harm) he offered them cigarettes and walks. Talked about their families at home and showed genuine interest in them as people. The gist of it was, he got more information from them that way than any other interrogator.
YOU are the partisan hack, and you are NOT forgiven, but chew on this for awhile:
What weasel words will you use to tell us how that doesn't precisely describe what the Bushwhacko traitors have done and continue to do? :roll:
I disagree. WW II is all the proof you need to know that there are just causes for going to war. We did not attack anyone. That war came to us, launched by two different enemies who attacked us and who were known to be committing attrocious crimes against humanity across the world.
Regarding the rest of your question, see Article 2, Paragaph 2 of the U.N. Convention, bolded, above.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
