Torture is wrong and can no longer be tolerated. The Bush administration would have us believe that torture is justified to fight terrorism and protect our country. But torture is a sign of weakness and fear, not of strength. They have used their White House spin to call their techniques “enhanced interrogation” thereby sidestepping national and international laws against torture.
The administration gave themselves a so-called golden shield in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department giving formal legal authority to government interrogators to use enhanced interrogation techniques. (Countdown)
On April 9 an ABC News investigation revealed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House, met regularly, starting in 2002 to discuss and approve interrogation techniques. The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee. At the time, the Principals included Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The sources for ABC said these advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate suspects – whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
They were involved hands-on in drafting torture guidelines for the CIA.

These same sources said these discussions about “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, some of the sessions were almost choreographed – down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
John Ashcroft apparently felt some pang of conscience because he said; “Maybe we shouldn’t be talking about this in the White House. History will not judge us kindly.”
During an interview for “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Thursday, April 10, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert said, “What you have are a bunch of people talking about what is something that‘s a crime. For those of us who look at the criminal code and see torture for what it is, this is like a meeting of the Bada Bing club. These people are sitting around regularly talking about something defined as a crime.”
“And it‘s notable that this group wanted to get lawyers to sign off on this, and they found those lawyers, people like Jay Buyby (ph), and John Yoo. And those people were handsomely rewarded. In Buyby‘s case, he became a federal judge after signing off on a rather grotesque memo that said that they could do everything short of causing organ failure or death”
The current issue of Washington Monthly was dedicated to the ending of torture. To that effect they invited 37 different people to write essays on the subject. It is interesting to note that to a person, in the essays written by military and intelligence personnel they stated that torture was not effective in getting useful information.
Here are some excerpts:
“Here are four simple truths about torture for you to consider: It is un-American. It is ineffective. It is unnecessary. And it is damaging.
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, U.S. Navy (Ret.) is a member of the board of the American Security Project.
“Describing torture as “enhanced interrogations,” “use of all necessary means,” or “educing information,” doesn’t change a thing. Torture in any shape, form, or fashion is still an unacceptable practice for all U.S. officials, whether civilian or military. Even if torture worked – and there isn’t even an iota proof that it does – its use betrays every treasured principal and freedom we Americans hold dear.”
Carl Ford was the assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research from 2001 to 2003
“Waterboarding is not “simulated’ drowning – it is real drowning that stops just short of death. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer’s best friend – easy, quick, and nonevidentiary. It had always been considered torture by civilized governments such as ours – until, of course, this administration.”
Bob Barr is a former congressman from Georgia.
"Ultimately, we cannot torture our way of terrorism, but we can certainly torture our way into more of it."
Tim Roemer was a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
In October 2006 Scott Hennen, a radio host in Fargo, North Dakota, asked Dick Cheney “Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?”
“Well, it’s a no-brainer for me,” Mr. Cheney replied. “But for a while there, I w
as criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”Now, it appears that is exactly what he and the White House were and are involved in.
It might be wise for Mr. Cheney to recall that after World War II, Japanese officers were convicted of war crimes for having subjected POWs to waterboarding.
Cheney tried for war crimes? It’s a no-brainer for me.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 58 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com or www.ccabot.gather.com.


Comments: 139
Wilhelm von Humboldt
Justice Antonin Scalia is on "60 minutes" here in california right now. He seems to be saying that torture isn't cruel and unusual punishment because, in fact, it isn't punishment. It strikes me, however, that the one being tortured is being punished for not revealing what the torturers want him to.
The Supremes can justify most everything, as we kinow, however, including their election of a president and their contention that the legalized bribing of our politicians by the special interests (which essentially disenfranchises the voters) is a matter of free speech.
Again, great article...
I shed many a tear for my children's unthinkable future in this Sad and Dying Culture and Country if we are unable to cause our so-called leaders and the "Powers That Be"
to make a complete 180 on the direction of our Government as well as our 'Civilization'
(I believe I am being generous in using that word to describe our current situation).
MY GOD (or whatever deity or spirit anyone prays to help us all)!
- Albert Schweitzer
Those currently in power are soulless creatures, bent on domination through ruination of civilizations while offering to rebuild said civilizations for a price.
- Richard Owl Mirror
This is naive, as to do so, unless it is in absentia, a pretty hollow act, we are prohibited from giving them up for punishment.
George "You're Either With me or F U" Bush has personally indicated that he knew and authorized this. His Justice Department has also already indicated that EVEN if they're acquitted at the trials ...ooops...tribunals...they were not going to be released. This vile, sneering, lowlife-in chief needs his backside tried with the rest of the warcrimes brigade in his administration and every single, pom pom shaking sychophant that supports these filthy criminal maggots needs to get tossed out of government and onto their ears. But hey, that's just my opinion. You know . . . and the opinion of people who . . . oh . . . I dunno . . . like freedom and despise inhumanity and all. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Now that was therapeutic.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The primary one is the human rights aspect, no person under
normal legal circumstances deserves to be subjected to
torture.
The other one is the law-enforcement side of this. Some
suspects, of varying shades of guilt know information that
can save lives.
Another is exactly what is torture?
Another is what is the circumstance of the case we
are looking at?
I think the best way to handle this situation is to
try to get as much information about what has
really happened, not only in the US, and currently,
but all over the world and all over history and try
to come to terms with this issue.
I am not for torture, but I also think that there are
times, very specific, and probably very few, where
I myself were I in some kind of crisis situation would
OK the use of torture on a suspect or prisoner for
what I would be convinced would be no other way
to handle the situation.
I do not really want to try to spell out those
circumstance here, it would take too long and
lead to too much argument, but I do not rule it
out. I further think that anyone who would
give the green light to torture should be
responsible for that action and it should
not be hidden, and it should come up for
review somewhere, sometime, and be released
to the public at some point so we know about
the kind of things that can happen.
The simplistic never allow torture under any
circumstances does not work for me, though
most of the stories I have heard about what
is constituting torture, do not qualify as
fair, necessary, or intelligent.
Finally there is the question of, whatever we
say or whatever law we pass, how does it get
enforced, and how do we know that some
arm of the American government is not torturing
people still somewhere in the world?
normal legal circumstances deserves to be subjected to
torture."
That should read: under ANY legal circumstances.
Torture is illegal.
"Another is exactly what is torture?"
Well . . . let's take for granted the post WW II trials in which the U.S. had no small hand might be a starting point, right? If we prosecute somebody for torture using the waterboarding method, it's hard for us to turn around and say it's not torture.
"...I also think that there are
times, very specific, and probably very few, where
I myself were I in some kind of crisis situation would
OK the use of torture on a suspect or prisoner for
what I would be convinced would be no other way
to handle the situation."
Well, then there are
times, very specific, and probably very few, where
You yourself will be will be in violation of Federal, Constitutional
and International law.
Torture is illegal and I need not review all aspects throughout the world and throughout history to know it's wrong independent of the laws againt it.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
And in the hypothetical case of a bomb buried in NYC and a suspect who knows where it is, letting millions of people die versus taking the chance of being tried and convicted of torture laws myself, but possibly saving millions of people, not to mention the billions that might not have to die in an all out nuclear war, anyone who did not take that option would be far guiltier.
''oh...and your opinion isn't useless? What makes you the "decider"?''
bruce is actually bu$h.
But that is ''no'' reason for us to engage in the practice for one simple reason. It makes us as wrong and low life as the enemy is. And anyone who believes that torture is ok in bu$he$ America, is as much a fascist as georgie boy is.
"Telecom bill would give them immunity from prosecution for their own crimes "...find one president who didn't have a form of "protection"
"
Never in American history has the government been riddled with so many cowards and fools.
Sam C., Apr 27, 2008, 8:39pm EDT "
Clinton ring any bells?
We are in a different world,..different times,...the weak do NOT survive,..check out the Netherlands,..or Europe,...it would be great not to torture anyone,....remember we are dealing with people who act like wild rabid animals.
So my useless opinion will never solve the problem of war? Please explain how you're pro-torture stance will solve the problem of war . . . I'd love to hear it. I side with Einstein, as long as there is man there will be war."
"...Jerry and others who want to go on record as being "good" people ... wonder why they need to make such a point of it."
Perhaps they want to distance themselves from man's inhumanity to man? Perhaps they feel remaining silent will suggest a tacit approval? Why do you want people to know your stance? Does it matter WHY they (or you) vocalize positions?
"bruce is actually bu$h."
Not the Bruce I've known. Has it changed? I don't know. I agree, not torturing doesn't protect all troops from torture. That said, torturing will likely get some of ours tortured who might not have been otherwise. And we do lose the high ground. If this country surrenders freedoms and everything that has made it great in the interest of self-preservation . . . it's no longer worthy of preserving. Inhumanity and war crimes are wrong. We're either a nation of laws that values humanity or we aren't.
"Funny, seeing as how the official US government position seems to be about distributing oil revenues to all Iraqis in a fair way, it sure seems like they are endorsing socialism for Iraq, not capitalism. "
That's the single most ignorant thing I think I've heard you say. Well, it may surprise you to know that one of the 'Benchmarks' set by the Bushie Administration is that Iraq's new (and weak) government needs to sign over 80% of the nation's oil to multinational oil corporations . . . for 20 to 35 years! They get to keep 17 of the 80 wells and NONE of the undiscovered oil. Explain to me how that's a measure of THEIR success in your bubble-wrapped world of Socialist delusions. (Here's a source.
As to your hypothetical . . . the military itself has said the information derived from torture is absurdly unreliable. People say whatever they think you want to hear, the truth be damned. It doesn't apply at all to Gitmo. It'd be like your hypothetical comes along and you pull random people off the street and began torturing them . . . continuing to do so five years later. Tell me . . . what do you suppose those people know (or knew) after five years of torture that remains true today? Tell me how pulling a person off the streets of New York in your hypothetical would help your problem. Your ignorance betrays you.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Criminal cartel of chicken hawks who certainly should be tried and executed for war crimes.
From MSN Encarta:
Torture was not legally sanctioned in the American colonies. However, the use of stocks, pillory, ducking, and branding were imported from England. Americans invented and exported a device called the head cage that caused sleep deprivation. There was also a colonial practice of hanging sex offenders by their genitals.
That kind of sounds like torture was an every day thing in the colonies to me....
The sources for ABC
Unnamed, OF COURSE *ROFL*
As Senator John McCain has stated, "If you inflict enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to know."
Ah, from the "torture expert" himself--- so are we to believe John McCain told his captors "anything" they wanted to know ??? Is McCain saying he was a non stop chatty cathy, just so they'd stop torturing him ???
Is McCain also suggesting he told his interrogators LIES ???? Or did he actually give useful intelligence, when they inflicted enough pain ????
If so, I wonder why it's been a part of combat since the beginning of time ????
sorry for the two posts, don't know how that happened
Think back to childhood......when someone restrains you, by say, holding onto your wrists, do you become submissive and passive, or hysterical and defensive? Personally, when someone abuses me or yells in my face, I turn off the part of my brain that listens. then I go into survival mode.
This administration doesn't have one shred of humanity or common sense. Our country is failing. There are people dying because of lack of healthcare. Those that are mentally challenged have been left in the streets to fend for themselves. Mothers with small children can be found in homeless shelters with little hope for their future. Many children in this once great nation are now illiterate, and our economy is in shambles. Where is this nation's conscience? It's obvious that the people in charge don't give a damn! Not about our soldiers, our children, or anyone else.
Well expressed thoughts on the subject! Sounds like all the argument has been provided by others so I'll not be redundant.
Cheri, I didn't know it was a requirement to "serve," just to have an opinion dearie.
The distinction in Dubya's case is his attempt to codify an arbitrary decision by the executive under some twisted interpretation of his authorization to wage whatever war necessary against "terrorism." It is a exercise in what he believes the just perogatives of the executive, which essentially means he can do any damn thing he wishes. To him the morality and consequence of torture does not enter the picture. It is a question of his right to authorize whatever despite law or precedent because HE is President of the United States, "clothed in power," as Abraham Lincoln said. If he succeeds in torture at will, despite Constituional restriction, he expands the power of the executive beyond the constraints of law. He proves Presidential war powers stand supreme over the Constitution or international treaty, history, precedent or previous American doctrine and action. Some of the very acts he has authorized are those that earned Nazi and Japanese war crimminals the gallows. Dubya's Presidency has been a constant exercise in the expansion of the executive. Torture is just one facet.
We will not always be the most powerful country in the world. When we lose that status then at some point we will be on the receiving end of what we are doing now. And when we are we will say "you can't do that it is wrong!" and they will just laugh at us and say "you legitimized it."
Excellent points, Sean. Sadly, it is not my generation, but those that follow that will be paying the price for Bush and Cheney and Co. for being so cavalier about torture.
I think this perception is globally shared among all people, else they are blind to the history of just how barbaric mankind has been in the past, is today, and will be tomorrow.
I also think there is a small subet of people, believing an "if only" cure is right around the corner. "If only we could educate all people well enough to see the way I see it, wouldn't that be nice" ! ! ! ! ! !
If only we could feed the hungry, if only we could provide for the poor. If only we could forget the color of our skin, our religion and close our borders, if only if only if only.....
If only torture weren't quite so predictable, perhaps the horrors of war itself would subside. One feeds the other and they both are sustained. I do not condone "torture," I merely accept its existence.
I fully understand what might drive a man to do such things, and I have to ask, "who am I?" to deny what this man thinks and believes. It is WAR ! ! ! ! Who are YOU to question an "on the ground" decision ???
We send these boys/men off to battle to fight in our name. The very least I can do, is support them, believe them, and not question their RIGHT to make any decision they feel neccessy while in the field.
I believe in our troops, and would rather we treat our soldiers as if their integrity is unquestioned.
Obviously, I am talking only about soldiers IN THE FIELD, making life and death decisions. Our boys can handle such responsibility of trust.
In 2003 , Iraqi prisoners were treated very differently. At Abu Ghraib prison, detainees were beaten, stripped naked, confined in small spaces, sexually humiliated, and threatened with dogs by U.S. Army soldiers and civilians. This violated our national values and subjected our country to worldwide condemnation."
Brigadier General Steve Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps. (Ret)
"Ultimately, we cannot torture our way out of terrorism, but we can certainly torture our way into more of it."
Tim Roemer was a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Somehow, I find these gentlemen a bit more credible than you jJ
And using the argument that torture has always been used, does not justify torture. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Name calling from a sensitive progressive type ??? *chuckle* you don't even know what a neo con is, you have this nebulous vision in your head you can't quite bring to the fore.
Neo con, ah, neo con-- I wonder if you could actually tell us what a neo con is, without drivel running to your chin and drip drip dripping. It seems to be a catch all phrase people throw around indiscriminately in mostly futile attempts to label and denigrate anyone that DARES to disagree *double chuckle*
Suffice to say, sweetie, I'm not a Jew, never have been a Jew, so no, I'm not a neo con. I don't belong to the PNAC either *triple chuckle*
I've never voted for a bush infact, not 41 or 43, so you see dearie, your assumptions are all wet, and I'll bet you'll have even more of them the next time I come back.
I just know I can always count on you baby poo *chuckle*
by the way, you silly uninformed.....
The Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY, as the defintion for a "soldier" is NOT met.
There is a very large difference between a soldier representing an official military of a sovereign nation, easily identified by uniform and flag, than some goat eating jihad movement without legal status, without a nation, without uniform or flag.
Without a nation, they have no legal status, not as it pertains to the Geneva Conventions. The description of a solider, is very specific, and cannot be applied to a combatant without legal status.
Therefore, as an illegal enemy combatant, he has no protections under Geveva at all.
In addition, the terrorists never signed the Geneva Conventions-- therefore, once again, it does not apply to them.
Article IV Section II of the 4th Geneva Conventions:
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
PROVIDED THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, GENEVA APPLIES.
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
You know, like the LEADER OF A COUNTRY where we know where he is and we can go get him if we want to. Obviously that doesn't apply to a terrorist.
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
A flag, that's all you need to get by this qualification-- oops, terrorists don't have one.
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
I don't believe a suicide bomber is carrying his arms "openly" do you ???
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
Obviously terrorists don't comply with this, as suicide bombers and beheadings alone disqualifies them.
When a war is fought, there is rarely a "right" or a "wrong." Wars are about politics and self interest -- not justice.
We are as we practice, not as we say. And in the 7 years of the Cheney-Bush administration of paranoia and propaganda, we have created a world where anyone anywhere can use torture against even Americans... and simply point the finger back at DC.
Bush et al have transformed a few stupid people's agendas, enabled them with exponential attention (just what the terrorists salivate after) and resources, and stripped the world of almost any moral high ground for the actions of rogue states and ideologies.
Good article Cheri.
President Bush believes he is doing the right thing even though I vehemently disagree-but that's just about the only thing good for him in my book. I mean, Hitler and Mao Tsetung all thought they were doing the right thing too, didn't they?! And obviously they haven't. Bush is nothing more than a deluded fanatic who refuses to accept responsibility for his actions and their ramifications.
Torture is a practice that we have condemned-now look at us, the hypocrites!
I especially appreciated the quotes and references.
But I think one of your most poignant references is in your comment where you quote Brigadier General Steve Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps. (Ret).
In WWII we also found the same positive reaction from captured German and Japanese soldiers and civilians; that they were surprised at what humanitarian captors we turned out to be. This turned to a great advantage for us as word spread among our enemies forces that we were not beasts to be hated, but actually friendly and accommodating when not being shot at or threatened.
Without their perception of us as mean and evil, the hate that spurred their combativeness leaked away from their hearts.
By torturing, hurting and humiliating those we capture and incarcerate, we end up fostering hate for us in the hearts of others.
Which is just plain stupid.
It's "Hail America" not "Heil Amerika"
You played right into their agenda.
Economic change never occurs without a crisis shocking the system; whether the crisis is natural, induced or merely perceived, as with enflaming public fears of war and terror threats.
Nobel economist Milton Friedman
Let's just do away with the Constitution, mmmkay?
The Senate joined the House in passing an intelligence bill that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding as an interrogation tactic. The CIA would have to abide by the Army Field Manual, which also prohibits beatings, electric or temperature shocks, forced nudity, mock executions, and the use of dogs. Some of those abusive techniques were on global display in the torture photos from Abu Ghraib.
McCain voted against the bill, and joined the Republicans in upholding Bush's eventual veto.
McCain said that while he remains opposed to waterboarding, "We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures."
(Source for quotes - Boston Globe)
That doesn't make it right - or prove that it is a successful tactic.
Otherwise the terrorists win. They expose our inhumanity.
I hope some dumb f'ing cop who hates you will make you a suspect for some imaginary crime so you can become the first person "Experimented" on with drugs.
Oh, wait they did that already in Nazi Germany, as well as here in America.
Ever heard of LSD or Project MK Ultra?
Who ever pissed you off sure did an amazing job, because you are one 'up' person.
Screwed Up.
..the problem is that you're not thinking it through.
If there was a pill that compelled people to tell the truth, your bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and social security number (not to mention all of our national secrets) could be extracted from anyone that knew them, by anyone in possession of the pill.
I'm sorry, but the only place you can really find the safety you seek (in the world that we live in, that is) is to cloister yourself in an isolated community of idealists. Of course, even then, there are no guarantees.
I'd like to point out that people do not have "the right" to kill, maim, torment, rob or steal from each other; they only have the ability.
"A right" is something that has been designated as permissible by cultural, societal or religious authorities; and most societies severally restrict the number of people given "the right" to kill, maim, torment, rob or steal.
> Torture during combat is common practice in all armies, at all times,
> including the American Army in every theater since the Revolution.
> That is the sad truth.
Good comment that expresses a deeper understanding of the issue.
You go on to say that Bush has attempted to codify this into the
mainstream. While I am not sure that is what they are attempting,
and much of this is motivated from outside attacks as well.
Torture is a complex issue, not because there is any doubt that
torture is bad, there isn't. What there is doubt about it the
motivations of anyone who stands up and makes a big point
about a torture being bad in order to front a completely
different agenda.
Torture, or anti-torture is now a political football, and everyone
who picks up and runs with the ball seems to think they are
being heroic. They are not, all they are doing is making the
issue cloudy and harder to discuss and settle.
As far as what is going on with the Bush administration, with
torture, or Guantanamo, or Abu-Graib, I do not know yet, and
neither does anyone else. There is obviously the appearance
of a over concern about defending what has been some of
the worst kinds of abuses in this war.
To me the issue is about finding out exactly what Bush, Cheney,
Rumsdeld's agenda is. To do that they need to look at the records,
like emails. The Congress seems to have no guts to force execute
branch members to testify of subpoena records about this.
The real issue is not torture. The real issue is what is going on
in the executive brand, and all the wacko off-the-wall grandstanding
comments from either side make it harder for American citizens
to grasp the real issue.
Anna seems to talk about how society, government, the planet is paralyzed by a lack of information about what is going on. Some of the questions might be, what is our government doing, under what control? Or what are other governments doing, and who is controlling them, and what levers do they have into our government.
In short what is the nature of reality. No wonder these issue become almost religious.
The idea of basing our societies on information or reason itself is a new one, the fruition of Democracy, we still do not know what are the rammifications of that. Does that mean that people have the right to rennovate government, or reality itself, or can we just ignore change and keep twisting and distorting the reality written in things like the Bible or the Constitution pretending all we ever need to know of thing is there already.
Talking about the nature of reality, is a scary thing ... pulling someone's reality or what is familiar to them out from under their feet is going to cause problems, and on the Internet people seem to delight in trying to do that with pride in the most irritating threatening way they can think of.
The idea of torture can go two ways. You can remind anyone of how horrible it would be to undergo torture, not mentioning the likelihood of them being tortured. Or you can point to people who hold up justice in the world for everyone and make the case that torture can clear that logjam in some cases. Or you can like Sam say that torture does happen in certain situations, like war, like crime and try to get and handle on it pragmatically.
Instead of any rational debate happening, we get those people commenting most who seem to close off debate, as if there is no debate, as if they know everything. Is Democracy or discussion anymore just the loudest most obnoxious voice who is most sure of themselves shouting everyone else down based on some tricks?
He was against torture before he was for it. LoL! This sorry excuse for a maverick blew it the first moment he started his hugfest with Booshie and tied himself to this filthy, corrupt Bush administration. Sayonara.
Winning Hearts and Minds!
"all they are doing is making the
issue cloudy and harder to discuss and settle."
I must be missing the clouds.
Keep in mind, people arrested, tortured
(sometimes to death) and many released.
Even innocent people.
"They were just having a good time, blowing off steam," - Limbaugh.
"...a big point
about a torture being bad in order to front a completely
different agenda."
Completely different? You mean like being AGAINST
torture instead of FOR torture?
You can wiggle around all you like.
Torture is wrong and a crime against
humanity. We now do what we prosecuted
other nations for as war crimes . . .
so presume motives all you please,
consider the 'cloudy' issue...
impugn my opinion, motivation and
position . . . talk about history
and point out others who do it.
In the end...it's still wrong.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Interesting thought. Particularly in the light of the torture and killings done 'in the name' of God. Of course, I'm sure you mean a true God and not a group of men purporting to act on behalf of God. I just found it interesting! Since we cannot control God, but we can control ourselves...perhaps we should just work on this issue one person at a time. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Wait until the new season of 24 begins. Some major threat and a sitting president who will look like Clinton or Obama (depending on who gets the nod) will not OK the torture of a suspect and something like 20,000 people get killed on U.S. soil.
Well it will be more subtle than that but you get the idea. This is how they will scare people come Fall, or even before. Just watch.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
TV yes america is entertained with violence how sad that is,and who runs the entertainment now?????
Got to install that fear.
That's the fiction version of fear. I fear the real version. The Madrid train bombing and the UK bombings were right before elections.
I want to agree how bad torture is and how it must be stopped everywhere. However, I need to be sure that I understand what you define as torture. I surely know that what John McCain suffered in Norht Vietnam was torture, he must have experience severe suffering and excruciating pain. And that is too extreme to be tolerated. I admit to believeing that Saddam was torturing people in his country even more severely, and that had to be stopped.
From the UN Convention Against Torture, "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."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
I am struggling with "severe", "suffering", "mental", and to some degree "physical". For those seemed to be difficult issues to agree on. As an example is it toruture to continue to question an individual who doens;t want to answer you, would they consider that "suffering" or "severe".
I can assure you that when I found Magic Marker drawings in the back of my daughter's closet I was agressive in questioning her and she felt she was "suffering" though she did not experience phycial pain. You may feel this is a rediculous analogy, but I offer it to give a sense of how the personal perspective can shade what is being done.
I am affraid that the way torture is define could fall into the trap of "pornography", (a poor attempt at the qoute) "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it". And when it is left to the eyes of the beholder it will not be stopped because it will always be trained by emotional and personal perspective.
Before we can ban all "torture" we need to quantify it. Or anytime someone is made uncomfortable they can claim they are being tortured.
"Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victims lungs fill water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impressions in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning." Bob Barr, former congressman from Georgia.
Rich Kaye - I wonder how long you would last under these conditions of of being "slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"
Duane B - perhaps if these things were done to you, you would then recognize it???
You are rigth it is in the eye of the beholder, when it is you done by others it can be called torture, but if the same is done by you to yourslef or freinds what is it?
"sleep deprivation, stress positions, forced standing, sensory deprivation, nudity, extremes of heat or cold. But such bland terms mask great suffering."
Let's consider sleep deprivation; is it that uncomon when for people to go 24 or 40 or even more hours without sleep. I will admit to those first two levels. I have seen people on TV interviews say how they have worked for much longer without sleep. I have even heard of "young adults" having don "pranks" that kept friends and aquantences up for those periods. So when is it torture?
If nudity is so bad, why is it when people streak or do "pranks" that it is at best a misdemeaner because of offense to others?
Extreme heat and cold, range from people going out and playing golf in high temperatures to the "polar bear clubs" annual winter dip in the icy waters.
I can even address stressful positions, because as I have aged what was normal activities are now stressful positions. AS for standing if I am standing the body locks in that positions for much longer them I would have tolerated years ago, but moving from from standing is where the "stress" comes in.
The point isn;t that torture shouldn't be stopped. It is that it needs to be defined so everyone is clear. Death is clear and the methods are clear to define a crime, it isn't a personal impression. TO me torture reacing into that level of crime, but with out defintion how do you prosecute it?
"perhaps if these things were done to you, you would then recognize it???" Before it can be eliminated or at least proerly banded it needs to be recognized by everyone as the same thing.
I wish that there were more efforts to develop quantifiable measures to describe torture, rather then simply decrying its existance.
I am also frustrated when the people that attack it only do so by saying how certain people are doing it and seldom if ever raise others that have used or are using it. Sam is right to a degree, why the double standard.
By simply attacking a US action suggests that other countries or groups are expected to use torture, a defacto condonning of what they do.