Post by: geronimotwo on December 12, 2007, 03:20:20 AM
Quote
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.
ADVERTISEMENT
Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.
While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.
The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.
At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.
Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.
Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."
In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."
For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.
Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.
Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.
"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.
He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."
Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes' request.
1 hour, 13 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.
ADVERTISEMENT
Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.
While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.
The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.
At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.
Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.
Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."
In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."
For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.
Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.
Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.
"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.
He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."
Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes' request.
should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?
should the cia be accountable to our courts? our constitution?
does the "need" for information supercede the rules of war laid out by the geneva convention?
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 03:38:39 AM
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 12, 2007, 03:55:37 AM
Quote
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 04:23:47 AM
so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....
I'm no fan of Lincoln, but to paraphrase him: "Whenever I hear someone defending torture, I have a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 05:03:37 AM
Quote
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....
Post by: geronimotwo on December 12, 2007, 05:21:06 AM
Quote
something like that.
what i don't understand is, why try to hide it then. let's do it on main street, make an example of what will happen to those who oppose us. we certainly shouldn't sign agreements that say we will not do it.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 05:42:24 AM
Quote
something like that.
what i don't understand is, why try to hide it then. let's do it on main street, make an example of what will happen to those who oppose us. we certainly shouldn't sign agreements that say we will not do it.
By condoning such behavior, we become those who oppose us.
What's next, Torture on American citizens? Of course not you say...we have rights!
Uh, yeah...sure we do. Read the constitution....inalienable rights....g*d given....hhhmmmmm, you think the founding fathers meant "You have rights unless you're not a citizen...then we should torture you"?
Oh, have any of you been tortured? Its easy enough to believe that its like the movies. Rough up the bad guy, he spills his guts, and the information is all real and correct.
If someone was waterboarding me, I'd probably confess to Nazi warcrimes, Sept 11th, and taking candy from babies. Anything to make you stop.
I've known my fair share of Vietnam vetran POW's. Many were tortured. Many confessed to war crimes and made statements against the war and the United States. And these were trained men who believed in themselves. Everyone has thier limit.
Post by: HankB on December 12, 2007, 05:44:29 AM
)Their reasons begin and end with hurting Bush - if something hurts the country, well, sometimes worthwhile goals (like hurting Bush) have collateral damage.
I can just imagine jihadis laughing themselves silly at Americans taking their side so overtly in public . . .
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 05:52:33 AM
It is something that has been going on pretty much since there have been human beings on the earth. The reason is that it can be pretty effective. Its not 100% effective, nor is it fool proof, but it has a long history of having some level of effectiveness that cannot be denied.
Its likely that agents of every country on earth have used torture, and on a regular basis.
I am opposed to regulating it because it gives it the cachet of legality.
Its something I don't really even want to know about. And the only reason the far left cares is because they think it is usable against Bush. If they are so opposed to torture, why aren't they outraged at the hundreds, maybe thousands of American citizens tortured over the years by the Chicago police department. The reason they don't care is because it can't be used against Bush.
I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.
Post by: BridgeWalker on December 12, 2007, 05:56:38 AM
I am against torture in pretty much all its forms, but clandestine operations shouldn't result in videotape. They should rsult in as little recird as possible.
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 05:58:09 AM
What I don't get is why tapes were madein the first place.
I am against torture in pretty much all its forms, but clandestine operations shouldn't result in videotape. They should rsult in as little recird as possible.
I am against torture in pretty much all its forms, but clandestine operations shouldn't result in videotape. They should rsult in as little recird as possible.
I think they probably recorded them so that whatever information was gained would not be lost.
Maybe for training purposes as well.
If you are going to torture people, might as well learn to do it correctly.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 06:42:20 AM
I can just imagine jihadis laughing themselves silly at Americans taking their side so overtly in public . . .
The why matters not.
The Jihadis are animals. We are not animals. We should not be sucked into this trap. Its a slippery slope of creeping incrementalisim. Accepting the torture of others will eventually lead to the torture of us.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 12, 2007, 08:34:14 AM
Quote
I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.
i feel i could take a life to protect my family, but i could no more be the torturer than the torturee. i don't have the mentality, or the stomach, for it. i find that odd in that to take a life is much more a finality than torturing someone.
Post by: wooderson on December 12, 2007, 08:40:12 AM
Quote
I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.
You seem awfully sure of the guilt of everyone who might be targeted by the state.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 09:20:47 AM
We got good intell.
The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.
When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 09:31:51 AM
They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and got good intell, he didn't confess to stealing candy, he ratted out comrades, told the interviewers about new plans/operations and the waterboarding was a success.
We got good intell.
The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.
When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
We got good intell.
The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.
When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
Getting good intel from a few people doesn't make it right.
Did I come out in support of Komrade Klinton? Don't lump me in with those people.
Torture is torture is torture. We lose our moral superiority by participating in such things. Its not right, its not American, its not Constitutional.
Quote
You seem awfully sure of the guilt of everyone who might be targeted by the state.
Zactly. Just because the Government says they know something or did something.....
Does anyone here trust the IRS?
The BATFE?
The FBI?
But somehow the CIA and the Administration get a pass when they decide someone is an "Enemy combatant" and deserves torture to see what they know......
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 09:32:32 AM
They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and got good intell, he didn't confess to stealing candy, he ratted out comrades, told the interviewers about new plans/operations and the waterboarding was a success.
We got good intell.
The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.
When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
If a few thousand innocents have to be killed to further the left's goals, they could care less. Especially if they are in a far away place.We got good intell.
The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.
When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
The far left in this country is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our citizens through the laws and policies they enforce. They do not care one whit. They are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of unborn Americans. They do not care. As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make.
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 12:02:54 PM
Waterboarding is not torture. Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.
Man did gunsmith nail it:
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 12:03:52 PM
how did anyone even find out about them if they are being held in secret?
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
Amen to that. We need a thorough cleaning out of the Augean Agencies.
Post by: wooderson on December 12, 2007, 12:06:08 PM
Quote
If a few thousand innocents have to be killed to further the left's goals, they could care less. Especially if they are in a far away place.
Funny, I don't remember the 'left' cheering that on at all. But what do I know, I am after all, merely a leftist myself. (who thinks Clinton should get a spot in the Hague alongside Kissinger and Dubya...)
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 12:10:54 PM
Waterboarding is not torture. Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.
Will you volunteer to be water-boarded and post the results on YouTube?
Quote
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."
Like innocent Muslims enduring water-boarding so you can feel safe? Remember, the folks captured and tortured are accused of involvement in terrorism, but we already know that many of them are completely innocent. Which is why due process was invented...
--Len.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 12:24:52 PM
Here we go, again, defining torture down.
Waterboarding is not torture. Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.
Man did gunsmith nail it:
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."
Waterboarding is not torture. Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.
Man did gunsmith nail it:
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."
How is it not torture to hold someone down and make them feel they are drowning? That's what it does to the body, is force it into a physical panic. Its torture.
And, so, if its not torture.....would you approve your local Police department to use it as an interrogation technique?
If your local PD can't do it, your Federal Government damn well shouldnt be doing it.
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 12:41:49 PM
Waterboarding is not torture. Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.
Will you volunteer to be water-boarded and post the results on YouTube?
Quote
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."
Like innocent Muslims enduring water-boarding so you can feel safe? Remember, the folks captured and tortured are accused of involvement in terrorism, but we already know that many of them are completely innocent. Which is why due process was invented...
--Len.
Len, I have had what I would describe as "vigorous compliance techniques" used on me in the past that I would rate as more, ahh, vigorous than waterboarding. This happened before the advent of youtube and I don't recall tape rolling during that not-so-fun time. Youtube will forever have to wait.
You have likely seen some of these techniques in action on video, but are ignorant as to how vigorous they are. Enlist, volunteer several times over for various schools & units, and you can also have some perspective on such techniques.
So, when I hear that three of the folks we have captured in the GWOT (or whatever it is called this week) have been waterboarded and gave up *expletive deleted*it-hot information, I wonder, "Why have they used it only three times?"
jamisjockey:
Finding & killing militant muslims abroad is not a police function.
The next absurd thing you might write could be:
Quote from: future_jamisjockey
...would you approve your local Police department to use close air support?
If your local PD can't do close air support, your Federal Government damn well shouldnt be doing close air support.
If your local PD can't do close air support, your Federal Government damn well shouldnt be doing close air support.
Quote from: geronimotwo
(1)should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?
(2)should the cia be accountable to our courts? our constitution?
(3)does the "need" for information supercede the rules of war laid out by the geneva convention?
(2)should the cia be accountable to our courts? our constitution?
(3)does the "need" for information supercede the rules of war laid out by the geneva convention?
(1) There are possibly situations where that might be the case, but for the great majority, the answer is NO.
(2) Depends on what you mean by "accountable" and which courts. Yes, the CIA ought to be accountable in the general use of the word, to the COTUS. Folks in #1, I would say they ought have no recourse to American courts. I would go further and say that US Citizens ought to have recourse to sue the CIA or any fed.gov entity for leaking classified information and forcing the fed.gov to track down the leaker and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
(3) Which conventions & accords? I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to. BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed. They can be shot out of hand, on the spot. If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 12:57:10 PM
Would you want the CIA waterboarding you if they suspected you of being a terrorist? Remember, terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Eric Rudolph was a Christian terrorist.
Would you support a White Christian American Citizen being waterboarded?
Do you think that your Government can blur the line without crossing over the line? I actually am not against torture in certain instances. However, I also believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not allow our government to inflict such techniques on people of this country, so why should it be allowed on anyone else? And how long until "Gee, it worked so well in Gitmo...maybe we should use it on Murder suspects. Maybe we should use it on any suspect of a violent crime."
Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 01:00:39 PM
should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?
I didn't notice the fallacy until jfruser quoted you. The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It restricts government from infringing pre-existing rights. For example, the 2A forbids the government to disarm anyone. The can't disarm citizens, they can't disarm non-citizens, they can't disarm sentient lichen from the planet Zort.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 01:04:57 PM
The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years. They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it! Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.
And now it appears that Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman, both high level Democrat congressmen in charge of intelligence oversight, were informed about the destruction of the tapes before it happened. Yet they expect us to believe that this is all some sort of eeeevil Bushco coverup.
For months all we heard from them was about how terrible and bad and evil the Bush administration was for leaking the identity of CIA agent Val Plame. Now the CIA destroyed some tapes in order to protect the identies of the agents. Do the Democrats care about the confidentiality of those identities now? No no no! Of course not! Not if they can use the situation to smear George W Bush and compromise the United States' ability to prevent terrorism.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 01:09:39 PM
The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years. They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it! Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.
Agreed. But that's not a defense of waterboarding, it's an indictment of the rat bastards on the (D) side of the aisle, who originally colluded with the rat bastards on the (R) side of the aisle but now are turning on them. Everyone who approved of this stuff should be imprisoned for three years and put through the same experience as Jos? Padilla, plus waterboarding if that wasn't on his menu.
They should also televise the whole thing as a warning to future politicians.
--Len.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 01:27:49 PM
Quote
Funny, I don't remember the 'left' cheering that on at all
Oh I remember it well, all the Hollywood nitwits were all aglow with praise for Clinton wagging the dog, when the airstrikes were happening I was in San Francisco, I went out to find the demonstrations and there were 4 Spartacus League guys with two signs.
The whole protest movement is owned lock, stock and barrel by the dems, if dems murder and torture
all you will hear from "answer" and "workers world" and "code pink" is the chirp of the crickets.
Post by: wooderson on December 12, 2007, 01:33:21 PM
Quote
Oh I remember it well, all the Hollywood nitwits were all aglow with praise for Clinton wagging the dog
Ah, yes, "the Hollywood nitwits" - who, even if we accept your version as reality - constitute the entirety of the 'left,' right?ANSWER didn't exist during the Clinton administration. Shocking that they never protested...
Likewise, the Workers World folks are a tiny group of Maoists who were never involved in any kind of mass action prior to the Bush era. (and are once again irrelevant)
And Code Pink? Nope, didn't exist either.
As for why there were few protests in general: no war, buddy. Hard to mount a campaign against missile strikes that have already ceased. The only long-term event of Clinton's tenure was the Balkan incursion, and it did receive broad support, as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 01:44:42 PM
The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years. They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it! Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.
Agreed. But that's not a defense of waterboarding, it's an indictment of the rat bastards on the (D) side of the aisle, who originally colluded with the rat bastards on the (R) side of the aisle but now are turning on them. Everyone who approved of this stuff should be imprisoned for three years and put through the same experience as Jos? Padilla, plus waterboarding if that wasn't on his menu.
They should also televise the whole thing as a warning to future politicians.
--Len.
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 12, 2007, 01:54:12 PM
Remember when the Iranians captured a British naval patrol a few months back? At the time, it was reported that the Brits were "tortured." I believe they were kept apart from each other, deprived of sleep, and probably questioned in harsh terms. I don't believe any of them were beaten, whipped, cattle prodded, stripped and forced to assume sexually humiliating positions, or water boarded. Yet the western press reported on their treatment as if it was torture.
But it's okay for us to do those things because we're the good guys? Reality check -- the other side thinks THEY are the good guys. We can't have it both ways. If we don't want (and expect) that it'll be done to captured Amwricans, we shouldn't be doing to our captives.
Period.
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 12, 2007, 01:56:25 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
Have it done to you, then say that.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 12, 2007, 02:07:17 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 02:59:19 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
Have it done to you, then say that.Post by: geronimotwo on December 12, 2007, 03:27:35 PM
Quote
I didn't notice the fallacy until jfruser quoted you. The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It restricts government from infringing pre-existing rights. For example, the 2A forbids the government to disarm anyone. The can't disarm citizens, they can't disarm non-citizens, they can't disarm sentient lichen from the planet Zort.
i'm glad someone pointed this out. that each of us have pre-existing rights. does this also imply our enemy has those rights?
Quote
3) Which conventions & accords? I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to. BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed. They can be shot out of hand, on the spot. If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.
i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect. here is a small excerpt from the fourth article of the geneva convention (gcIIII)
Quote
(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)
Quote
Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 03:32:56 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
Have it done to you, then say that.My understanding of the process of waterboarding is that your body is going to tell you that you are drowning. Having been within seconds of drowning before, more than once, I can tell you personally that its not a pleasant experience. If, even in controlled circumstances, I was subjected to something that made me feel that I were drowning, I garauntee you that is torture.
Post by: Nitrogen on December 12, 2007, 03:39:33 PM
People like Harry Reid and Joe Biden want the tapes for one reason, and one reason only: they see it as a way to hurt Bush
If bush didn't want to be hurt by it, he shouldn't have done it, or shouldn't have hid it.
Much like Clinton and his Cigar adventures.
Only his didn't kill people or torture anyone (except via the news coverage.)
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 03:42:57 PM
People like Harry Reid and Joe Biden want the tapes for one reason, and one reason only: they see it as a way to hurt Bush
If bush didn't want to be hurt by it, he shouldn't have done it, or shouldn't have hid it.
Much like Clinton and his Cigar adventures.
Only his didn't kill people or torture anyone (except via the news coverage.)
Clintons mistake was never the cigar-intercourse...it was lying about it. And one may argue he only bombed that factory in somalia as a way out of the Lewinski scandal.....
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 04:00:39 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.
Post by: Paddy on December 12, 2007, 04:06:34 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.
I'd pay and supply the beer to watch that.
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 04:40:01 PM
Quote
3) Which conventions & accords? I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to. BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed. They can be shot out of hand, on the spot. If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.
i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect.
i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)
FYI, there have been several rounds of conventions & accords over the years.
Captured terrorists are not POWs. It is not subjective at all, as the "unlawful combatant" criteria are spelled out. I have posted them before. Do a search for the verbiage & a link. They have no rights as POWs under the accords we have signed on to. The USA specifically repudiated one of the later (1970s, IIRC) accords granting unlawful combatants POW status. I think that right. It was a blatant attempt by those who expect to violate the conventions to receive POW treatment from those who do.
IMO, we ought to shoot a goodly proportion of unlawful combatants out of hand, right on the spot. The Geneva Conventions were to have two components, a carrot and a stick. The carrot was good treatment by signatories if you also adhered to the conventions regarding POW treatment. The stick was no obligation to treat violators well by the signatories. There ought to be a price to be paid for targeting noncombatants.
I repeat: signatories who fulfill their commitments are under no obligation to follow them in the case of those who either do not sign on to the conventions or do not fulfill their obligations.
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 05:08:48 PM
Military action is not a police function. What the Police, Military, CIA and our Politicians share, however, is an oath to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION and laws of our nation...
I actually am not against torture in certain instances...
Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately.
I actually am not against torture in certain instances...
Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately.
Well, you and I differ on a great deal. For one, I do not believe that we ought to inflict torture (as opposed to your idea of "torture") on any one at any time for any reason. Period.
[hypothetical]What if he holds out? Remember, you'd only do this in a "ticking bomb" circumstance...What if you're torturing a strong-willed man who will not break? Perhaps by threatening his family and putting them under the knife you might gain his compliance. Hurting ONE innocent family member of a scumbag terrorist is worth it if you save thousands or millions?[/hypothetical]
The most pathetic and morally indefensible position is McCain's: outlaw all effective legitimate techniques, but expect our men to break the law and actually go hammer & tongs when it might be critical. Thus, depriving our men of the proper tools to do their job, while maximizing their exposure to legal consequences when they find that patty-cake don't cut it. Disgusting.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, fiddling with food to wig out his internal clock, mind games, intimidation, etc. are not torture. They are legitimate interrogation techniques with no lasting effects on the subject. It is a recent innovation by the vile, simpering weasels of the West to categorize each and every effective technique as "torture."
The Brits mentioned earlier were not tortured, if the description given is accurate. They were ill-treated for no good reason and Iran ought to have paid a steep price for doing such to one of the civilized countries.
Interrogation of unlawful combatants is most certainly in accord with the COTUS. It has ever been so and ever will be, barring an Amendment.
Finally, I can not take seriously any argument that relies on reducto ad hitlerum.
Post by: RevDisk on December 12, 2007, 05:58:06 PM
how did anyone even find out about them if they are being held in secret?
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.
Becoming carbon copies of the Soviets is not exactly endearing to me. We are Americans. We are not supposed to operate secret prisons. "State Security" does not trump the rule of law. We do not torture people. We do not allow NKVD style organizations. And if you want to go down that road for 'victory', remember, the communists lost. For all their horrors they unleashed on the world, they lost.
Also, be care when you cheer for 'enemies of the people' to be blackbagged, shipped to secret prisoned, tortured, 'confess', a short show trial, and then sent to the labor camps. For a while, they might be used on actual enemies. Very shortly after, they will be used on ordinary people. The horrors we allow in the name of 'state security' WILL be used on American citizens. Remember that, and remember a left wing president will eventually be elected. Do you still want the government to have that kind of authority?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 06:31:17 PM
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.
Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.
You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.
I'd pay and supply the beer to watch that.
I've near-drowned before. So have other folks I know. No, it was not pleasant. But neither was it particularly harmful to any of us once we got the water out of our lungs and the air back in. Think of it as a character building exercise.
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 08:11:25 PM
But it's okay for us to do those things because we're the good guys? Reality check -- the other side thinks THEY are the good guys. We can't have it both ways. If we don't want (and expect) that it'll be done to captured Amwricans, we shouldn't be doing to our captives.
Reality check. We are the good guys. The other side is inherently evil. It does not matter much if they actually do think they are the good guys. if they think that, they are wrong.
These are scum that behead people with dull knives.
Post by: ilbob on December 12, 2007, 08:14:17 PM
Quote
3) Which conventions & accords? I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to. BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed. They can be shot out of hand, on the spot. If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.
i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect. here is a small excerpt from the fourth article of the geneva convention (gcIIII)
Quote
(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)
Quote
Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 13, 2007, 02:41:09 AM
Quote
Terrorists are not now, nor have they ever been considered POWs under any convention. They do not meet the criteria of lawful combatants anymore than spies and saboteurs do. There is no requirement they even be tried. They can be shot out of hand.
that is why i provided article III which deals with any combatant. here in gcIII it specifically states that once they are detainees, they will be given the same considerations as others covered by the gc. up until that point you certainly may shoot them "out of hand".
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 13, 2007, 03:25:27 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 03:34:34 AM
Playing with someone's mind isn't real torture.
It can do permanent damage.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 13, 2007, 04:06:58 AM
Post by: grampster on December 13, 2007, 05:17:05 AM
Perhaps then the governments that are playing both ends against the middle would get serious about who they support or harbor.
I'm not so sure that this might not be a bad idea. The first rule of war in my book is that if we are placed in the position that requires war, we need not be shy about what tools we use to win it. The will to win is a cold decision. Mass transportation and other technologies change the make-up of the ability of our enemies to harm us. The rules have changed.
As the philosopher once said, "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold!"
Post by: Paddy on December 13, 2007, 05:25:00 AM
Quote
A book I read recently described a fait accompli being delivered to governments of every foreign state that is known to harbor or support radical extremists that may engage America by attacking us or any of our national interests using wmd's or chemical or biological weapons. The fait accompli listed 122 locations that would be totally destroyed immediately after any attack of that nature.
That's the single best idea yet. Open, straightforward, inexpensive deterrence. However, it doesn't provide the cover for huge, multibillion dollar transfers of wealth from the public treasury to the private sector, as does a 'war' and 'occupation'. So it's not likely to be adopted.
Post by: SteveS on December 13, 2007, 06:57:43 AM
Quote
(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
The definition of torture from that act:
Quote
As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.
Waterboarding, IMO, certainly fits within this definition. The current administration has worked very hard to find people for the Justice Department that will say that it does not. See this article:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-low-can-they-go.html
Post by: grampster on December 13, 2007, 10:40:21 AM
What you just posted would probably preclude Hillary from being president.
Post by: wooderson on December 13, 2007, 10:51:24 AM
Quote
i have a question i've asked often never got an answer my understanding was we never ratified one of the accords does that affect compliance?
Not really. Whether a treaty has been ratified or not is largely irrelevant - we play along with the rules laid down because we choose to. Who's going to stop us? There is no international court or multinational force that can make the US do anything we don't want to do.Traditionally, we've followed (in the public eye) things like the Geneva conventions out of a desire to protect American soldiers should they be taken captive, and also because the accords were considered 'the right thing to do.'
Post by: ilbob on December 13, 2007, 11:27:12 AM
It amounts to this. If the situation is dire enough, and you are willing to take the risk on yourself, go ahead and torture to your hearts content knowing full well it may well get your butt into serious trouble. Presumably if you are right, your actions get ignored, or someone up the food chain steps in. If you are wrong, you deal with the legal consequences. It is not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.
Post by: RevDisk on December 13, 2007, 05:18:03 PM
i have a question i've asked often never got an answer my understanding was we never ratified one of the accords does that affect compliance?
The War Crimes Act of 1996 covers all Americans. UCMJ covers all military personnel, and is very specific on treatment of detainees.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html
In all honesty, when I attended my first "Law of Land Warfare" classes in the .mil, I never expected to hear Americans arguing on whether or not torture should be allowed. Heck, the most of us rolled our eyes when we were told torturing folks is a no-no. Seemed like common sense at the time. Goes to show how far we've come as a country in such a short time, and is worrisome about our future.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 03:45:31 AM
n all honesty, when I attended my first "Law of Land Warfare" classes in the .mil, I never expected to hear Americans arguing on whether or not torture should be allowed. Heck, the most of us rolled our eyes when we were told torturing folks is a no-no. Seemed like common sense at the time...
The instructors probably still say it. Now they just wink at the class and pantomime holding a haji's head under water while they do it.
--Len.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 14, 2007, 07:53:22 AM
I sort of like McCains idea on this situation.
It amounts to this. If the situation is dire enough, and you are willing to take the risk on yourself, go ahead and torture to your hearts content knowing full well it may well get your butt into serious trouble. Presumably if you are right, your actions get ignored, or someone up the food chain steps in. If you are wrong, you deal with the legal consequences. It is not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.
It amounts to this. If the situation is dire enough, and you are willing to take the risk on yourself, go ahead and torture to your hearts content knowing full well it may well get your butt into serious trouble. Presumably if you are right, your actions get ignored, or someone up the food chain steps in. If you are wrong, you deal with the legal consequences. It is not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.
McCain's stance is a cop-out. Putting the burden on those in the field to decide if they should risk ending thier career or going to jail vs. possibly saving the country from a terrorist attack, or gaining intelligence on our enemies? That's not leadership, its a refusal to take a hard stance. I'd respect him more if he said we should start yanking fingernails and screw any conventions, accords, or agreements. At least then he'd be making a hard fast decision.
Post by: roo_ster on December 14, 2007, 08:08:14 AM
If a politician expects our men & women to go hammer & tongs on a jihadi, that politician needs to have the courage to vote on & pass legislation making it legal.
I am still against torture, properly defined as torture.
Post by: ilbob on December 14, 2007, 03:18:45 PM
I'm with jamisjockey. McCain's stance is: "Congress will claim the moral high ground and preen before all...while we expect you bastards in the trenches to do what you have to to save our butts, after which we'll prosecute you and hang your butts out to dry."
If a politician expects our men & women to go hammer & tongs on a jihadi, that politician needs to have the courage to vote on & pass legislation making it legal.
I am still against torture, properly defined as torture.
McCain's way has worked at least since the French and Indian Wars. The only thing really different now is that an attempt is being made to control it by rules and regulations. Ironically, what is actually an attempt to protect detainees by abusing them in the most minimal way possible is being misrepresented as something sinister.If a politician expects our men & women to go hammer & tongs on a jihadi, that politician needs to have the courage to vote on & pass legislation making it legal.
I am still against torture, properly defined as torture.
Do you really think that American soldiers have not used coercive techniques against the enemy before? The enemy used it, so did we. It just was not talked about openly in an attempt to sabotage a country's security for political benefit.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 16, 2007, 01:37:41 PM
Quote
Do you really think that American soldiers have not used coercive techniques against the enemy before? The enemy used it, so did we. It just was not talked about openly in an attempt to sabotage a country's security for political benefit
so, are you saying it's ok to discuss these methods as long as it's not for political gain? it seems to me that if it results in political GAIN, then the majority of americans are against it, and therefore should not be in the current toolbox.
Post by: gunsmith on December 16, 2007, 09:15:22 PM
Quote
ANSWER didn't exist during the Clinton administration. Shocking that they never protested...
Likewise, the Workers World folks are a tiny group of Maoists who were never involved in any kind of mass action prior to the Bush era. (and are once again irrelevant)
And Code Pink? Nope, didn't exist either.
As for why there were few protests in general: no war, buddy. Hard to mount a campaign against missile strikes that have already ceased. The only long-term event of Clinton's tenure was the Balkan incursion, and it did receive broad support, as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do.
Likewise, the Workers World folks are a tiny group of Maoists who were never involved in any kind of mass action prior to the Bush era. (and are once again irrelevant)
And Code Pink? Nope, didn't exist either.
As for why there were few protests in general: no war, buddy. Hard to mount a campaign against missile strikes that have already ceased. The only long-term event of Clinton's tenure was the Balkan incursion, and it did receive broad support, as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do.
You're not arguing with a young conservative here, you're arguing with an old anarchist who was at most of the big protest throughout the 1980's. "Answer" wasn't active during the Clinton admin because their friends were in power. "Answer" has been around for a long time, they just call it different names during different Republican admins. Code Pink is simply the latest incarnation of Medea's minions.
I saw teeny demo's against Jimmy Carter for mining the Nicaraguan harbor and supporting the Contras and huge demo's against Reagan for the same kind of stuff, the same people (bought and paid for by the dems) who organized the giant demo's against Reagan and Bush 41 are the same people calling themselves "Answer" now.
Quote
as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do
Oh, I see bombing hospitals and TV stations and bridges (and the Chinese Consulate) are "human rights"...oooooh I see, when Democrats go to war and the liberal media cheers it on and the Hollywood nitwits say "go team" Then all of a sudden it is ok to kill innocent civilians, oh, ok.
Thanks for clearing it all up!
Post by: brer on December 16, 2007, 10:57:11 PM
Regardless of whether the US signed onto the last rounds of the geneva convention or not. We are signatories unless we withdraw from the convention. Actual verbiage from the convention. You do not get to pick and choose which rules you are going to follow if you are going to remain a signatory.
Under geneva convention rules, if a person does not fall under POW status, he falls under civilian status and still has rights guarenteed to him. Among those is freedom from torture.
Failing that, the hague conventions are still in effect, which we are still signees. These also preclude torture of civilians.
Read the conventions sometime. All of them, before you even think that what we are doing is legal under the geneva conventions.
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 04:45:44 AM
And it is amazing how smoothly the concept of untermensch has come back, into the realm of subjectivity, and even open acceptence.
------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org