The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the “alternative interrogation methods” that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation’s most sensitive national security secrets and that their release — even to the detainees’ own attorneys — “could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage.” Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26.
The battle over legal rights for terrorism suspects detained for years in CIA prisons centers on Majid Khan, a 26-year-old former Catonsville resident who was one of 14 high-value detainees transferred in September from the “black” sites to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many detainees at Guantanamo, is seeking emergency access to him.
The government, in trying to block lawyers’ access to the 14 detainees, effectively asserts that the detainees’ experiences are a secret that should never be shared with the public.
So by my estimation, this means that the Bush administation can:
1.) Snatch whoever the hell they want off the street, as long as they claim they are a terrorist suspect.
2.) Take them to a secret prison, informing no one and offering no due process.
3.) Beat them indiscriminately, using “alternative interrogation methonds” (but we don’t torture!)
4.) Once they figure out they have the wrong guy, they make it illegal for him to speak about his treatment.
Ain’t America grand!
Ned R.
If someone is released elsewhere than the US, doesn’t that mean they could say whatever they wanted to?
Pb
More details about Majid Khan from Wikipedia:
Jason
I guess while North Korea is in an nuclear Arms race with us we are in a torture race with them.
It isn’t koolaid we are supposed to be drinking it is 100% Juche baby!
Ugh
Someone needs to tell the administration that Kafka’s “The Trial” is not the federal rules of criminal procedure.
manyoso
The amazing thing is that they can do all of this to an American citizen according to congressional law. Gedanken experiment:
President Bush could theoretically write a secret order declaring Speaker Pelosi an enemy combatant and have her snatched from her home. Law enforcement need not be notified and the rest of the country could be placed on a state of high alert as the press reports speculation that Pelosi was kidnapped by terrorists. President Bush could then have her shipped to a secret prison somewhere in the world and tortured until she admits that she was working with Osama Bin Laden. With habeas corpus suspended, Speaker Pelosi would have absolutely know recourse to challenge her detention and could be indefinitely detained and tortured for the rest of her natural life.
All in the name of “National Security” and all perfectly legal according to law passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President.
What a great country, eh?
Pb
Also, from the end of the WaPo article:
manyoso
Translated for Darrell:
President H. Clinton could theoretically write a secret order declaring Majority Leader McConnell an enemy combatant and have him snatched from his home. Law enforcement need not be notified and the rest of the country could be placed on a state of alert as the press reports speculation that McConnell was kidnapped by terrorists. President H. Clinton could then have him shipped to a secret prison somewhere in the world and tortured until he admits that he was working with Osama Bin Laden. With habeas corpus suspended, McConnell would have absolutely know recourse to challenge his detention and could be indefinitely detained and tortured for the rest of his natural life.
All in the name of “National Security” and all perfectly legal according to law passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President.
Jill
Any word on the progress of the prosecution of the Miami 7 or the London airplane bomb plot?
Ugh
Shamelessly stolen from a commenter at Digby’s place:
Can’t we prosecute those who did the torturing for releasing classified information to an unauthorized person?
Punchy
What the Bush Admin claims under the guise of “national security” is now officially laughable.
I’m still waiting for a Terror Alert Orange/Red/Whatever the freakout color is…on Monday. They’ve got to do something…why not go full-bore fearmongering?
ThymeZone
It was, before these crapheads took over.
We can start taking it back in 72 hours.
KC
Tell me, what’s the different between communists and the leadership of the Republican party? Yeah, I know, I know, the comparison isn’t fair, they’re not like Stalinists or anything. They haven’t pushed to lock up citizens in labor camps, yet.
rachel
There’s an undocumented worker joke in here somewhere.
Pb
KC,
Not unless you’re talking about Michelle Malkin and friends, and however many other people actually bought her book…
Perry Como
This administration belongs in prison. Not a secret prison where confessions are extracted by Khmer Rouge brand torture. They deserve a public and fair trial[0] with all of the evidence presented, out in the open, about how they have violated the basic human rights that all people have.
[0] – something they refuse to give to others
Zifnab
There’s a slight problem with this line of assumption. Could Bush have pulled off an insane stunt like this in the weeks following 9/11? Or at the height of paranoia in ’02 and ’03? Or after his “mandate” in the ’04 elections with Congress literally in his pocket? Maybe. Assuming the NYTimes and the Washington Post and every other outspoken news source didn’t get all the gritty details leaked to them by those in the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or whatever agency got assigned this task but didn’t religiously drink the kool-aid every morning.
But lets face it. Bush cultists tend to suffer unreliable loyalties AND a serious incompetancy streak. But when it comes to doing more than bald-faced lies and bribary, the Bush Admin is totally incompetent. If his choice for special agents in the field is as sound as his choice for Iraqi Reconstruction administrators, the raid will most likely be carried out by a bunch of college students that flunked out of A&M. I don’t think soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi has anything to worry about.
AkaDad
Isn’t putting plans to make an atomic bomb on the internets aiding and abetting the terrorists?
The Other Steve
I think it’s about time we impeach President Bush on the grounds that his torturous arguments are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
DAN
Orwell becomes more relevant everyday with this administration
jcricket
And that 1984 was not a “Democracy 101” book.
And more importantly
That’s the whole point of trying to classify everything, and claim “state secrets” for everything they do. It’s the power to change the past, to claim what they’re doing never happend. It’s the power to control the present – to redefine torture as “coercive interrogation” so that it’s impossible to argue with them.
I’ll be totally frank, it’s bad enough we’re picking up hundreds or thousands innocent (i.e. 75-80% of the people once kept at Gitmo have been released) foreigners and shipping them off to our semi-secret prisons for endless rounds of torture and never-ending prison sentences. But
what really frightens me is cases like Jose Padilla coupled with the John-Yoo-based “suspension of the constitution and infallibility of the President during war” theory.
Please raise your hand if you trust this (or other) presidents with the power to classify any American citizen as an “enemy combatant”, strip him of all his US-citizen-granted rights, endlessly torture him, and provide no ability for this person to present their case, at any point, that they’re innocent (because everything along the way you used as evidence is “state secrets”).
If your hand is raised, please purchase a remedial US and world history book. If you do not want to do this, please purchase a one-way ticket to Iran or North Korea and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Is there anyone who (besides Darrell and John Hinderaker) is so afraid of the possibility of terrorist attacks that they seriously think this is the right direction for America? And that the powers that be won’t abuse this? Or that it would be ok if Democrats had this power? (of course not, because Bush is a glorious leader and infallible, but Hillary is treasonous lesbian pond-scum, so she wouldn’t be granted this. John Yoo would revoke his special legal cloak of immunity during a Democratic presidency)
Tsulagi
This is what passes for tough by the queens in the Old Gay Party. Focused on shredding our Constitution instead of achieving any real results against terrorism. Much easier to do for a retard like Bush when backed by mavericks like McCain and Graham. Osamma couldn’t have outsourced to better partners.
Looking forward to his next fatwa/executive finding after the midterms. See how he “clarifies” the Military Commission Act and once again proclaims as wartime president he’s not bound by any restrictions.
Perry Como
This bothers me (yes, I’m a wonk). The US government doesn’t grant jack shit. We are born with our rights. The US government is only there to protect our rights.
And John Yoo is an un-American asshat.
manyoso
Keep telling yourself these nice platitudes. I don’t think President Bush has had to face any shortage of CIA interrogation operatives or people willing to do his dirty work. Fact is, if he did this it would be entirely legal according to congressional law. What’s more, it could never be challenged in court with the suspension of habeas corpus.
Tony Snow in ’07:
Q: What is the White House response to the New York Time’s article about Speaker Pelosi’s detention?
A: I haven’t read it, but from what people tell me it is all based on anonymous sources. It is ridiculous on the face of it. As we’ve said many times, the White House does not condone torture and we do not condone Speaker Pelosi’s disappearance.
Q: Did the White House forcefully remove Speaker Pelosi? Has she been declared an enemy combatant?
A: Again, I’m not going to get into it with every anonymous source with a crackpot conspiracy theory. This is nuts. The President does not condone torture and we do not condone the Speaker’s detention.
Q: As you know, the Vice President was just on Rush Limbaugh’s show and seemed to confirm that the Speaker was a White House target. He said that he what ever happened to her, “It’s objectively good for the country and necessary for national…”
A: The Vice President said no such thing. Look, you can parse this however you want, that is up to you. But, make no mistake, the Vice President would never admit that anyone was a target. Go back and look at the transcript. It is preposterous.
Jessica
It scares me to think what might happen if the Republicans retain power after this election. If the concept of “Democrat as enemy of the State” gains traction, combined with the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping, those 48% of us with a (D) next to our voter registration entries could see some serious problems. If rhetoric is being thrown around like, “The US will be attacked again if the Democrats gain power,” and “Democrats want the terrorists to win,” painting such an event not as the natural cycle of democracy but as an actual danger to our country, what’s to stop the Bush administration from declaring martial law and seizing control of the country indefinitely?
The Liberal Avenger
Jill:
I heard this week that “all but 10 or 15” of the London airline plotters have been released with all charges against them dropped.
The Liberal Avenger
Please forgive me my ignorance – I am a relatively new arrival to this blog.
Are most commenters here long-term opponents of the Bush disaster-regime or are most of you recent converts, like our esteemed host Mr. Cole?
Dave_Violence
Haven’t they been doing this already? I’ve been afraid to walk the streets, frankly, because I’m afraid the secret police will pick me up and I’ll never be heard from again. Just like Noam Chompsky.
Again, this is why we haven’t heard from David Corn in years.
Ever since the entire board of Pacifica Radio were spirited away and finally resurfaced, displaying their broken bodies for everyone, I haven’t been able to sleep.
Well, once it’s the law, it’s hard to change.
ThymeZone
Screw the people …. full speed ahead!
Public disapproves?
Cheney: It doesn’t matter.
Well, we’ll soon see, won’t we?
ThymeZone
addendum: My previous cite is from DKos.
Dave_Violence
I’m a “Pro-Bush right-winger” who hasn’t abondoned reading Balloon Juice, for the record. Of course, I’m probably party to the stranglehold the Bush Admin has on media outlets like the NYTimes, so I’m just faking it…
Pb
The Liberal Avenger,
How recent are we talking about–at some point in the past six years? In my case, it was 2002, pre-Iraq war, but some here supported that.
Perry Como
Most of the commenters here are far left moonbats that believe in things like the “Constitution” and the “rule of law” — aka terrorist lovers.
Captain Comeback
Good old John Yoo, the great architect of the rationale for these proceedings, flexing his inner Korean authoritarian inclinations.
chopper
on a side note, the thing i love best about the executive branch saying ‘if the dems take the hill, we’ll get struck again’ is that they’re essentially admitting that they themselves have no ability at all to keep us safe, and that it all apparently hinges on congress.
searp
This is just another expanding crack in the facade. I can’t wait for the next two years.
We will find out in some detail what has been done in our name, the abusive interrogations, the night and fog operations, all of it will come out. I thought some time ago that these detainees would be dead by now. Now that we know that they are alive, it is just a matter of time before their treatment becomes part of the public record.
Those CIA folks are perfectly right to be worried – they would have been much better off refusing illegal orders.
The pardon pen will be in overdrive at the White House in early 08. My guess is that it won’t provide complete immunity. Certainly does nothing in some jurisdictions – Europe, public opinion, etc.
Not just the worst administration ever, but an administration that is qualitatively different from any previous administration. An administration that engaged in human rights abuses, massive coverups and malfeasance, etc., and proudly, yes, proudly, asserted the necessity and desirability of all of it, all the time hiding what was actually being done.
The Liberal Avenger
Haven’t they been doing this already? I’ve been afraid to walk the streets, frankly, because I’m afraid the secret police will pick me up and I’ll never be heard from again. Just like Noam Chompsky.
Nice, Dave Violence. Those liberals are such silly worry-worts!
Is it really the liberals who are foolishly fearful of nothing at all, or is it the “Pro-Bush, right-wingers” like yourself who cower in fear, paralyzed by news of the next big al-Qaeda attack that may come any minute at all omg thank the lord that we’ve got george bush to protect us from the scary arabs who want to kill us all they thirst for infidel blood save me don rumsfeld!
Tim F.
By Dave’s logic we might as well make it legal for the government to execute people at whim. Because they wouldn’t, you know, do it.
Dave_Violence
Good question. Answer: it’s the liberals who are hysterically fearful of the wrong thing. I don’t cower in fear nor am I paralyzed regarding any attack from al-Queada because a) I do not fear physical death as I’m one of those pesky Christians, and b) we have good (not perfect…) people working to protect us from terrorism, 24/7.
I don’t really know of anyone who’s “cowering” in fear regarding terrorism except one friend of mine who worked at the American Stock Exchange and narrowly made it out alive on 9-11. Since then, she’s become an irrational jingoist who’s bought several gas masks. Though she has no problem getting in a taxicab driven by an Arab or a Persian, so there’s some progress.
Off-topic: I “cower” in fear, well, sort of “quake in rage” that the Democrats MIGHT use a victory to declare a war on gun ownership instead of doing something useful like declaring a war on the war on drugs – something they should END (and could have ended under Bill Clinton, no?). I live in New York, and though I vote for the elephants generally, I support Hillary! because she’s tough and smart and on the correct side of GWOT.
Dave_Violence
Really? Who the hell do you thik I am, Anne Richards?
Perry Como
Hmmm.
Luckily this year we are seeing more pro-gun Dems running, like Webb. I’ve long said that the gun control is a losing issue for the Democrats, especially in the Western states. I agree that the War on Drugs should end. It’s stupid, a massive waste of resources, has greatly curtailed individual liberty, and has led the US to the highest incarceration rate in the world.
As to GWOT, it’s about as effective as the War on Drugs. And the outcome for American society will likely be the same.
Bob In Pacifica
After WWII didn’t we put Germans and Japanese on trial for this kind of stuff?
Maybe because they didn’t pass laws making talking about it illegal.
Walker
While I am not a fan of this law, there was quite some discussion this on Glenn Greenwood’s site recently, and this claim is not correct. It is true that the law says that unlawful enemy combatant is anyone whom the Pentagon says is one. However, all the directives in the Act for detaining combatants and and suspending habeus corpus specifically refer to alien enemy combatants. So while the Pentagon can declare Pelosi an unlawful enemy combatant, they cannot really do anything with that declaration.
The law is still dangerous because if another law comes along and refers to “unlawful enemy combatants”, judges will most likely use the definition from this law, and the secondary law may not use the “alien” quantifiers. In fact, evil synergy between laws can cause a host of problems. However, as it stands, this law by itself cannot affect citizens.
Of course, everyone is confused about this because the law got passed like a tricycle on the Interstate. Indeed, this type of behavior has be the cause of a host of other problems.
Ted
Americans are special, you see. ‘Furriners’ don’t deserve jack shit when we collect them in our wars of choice. They can be treated like fucking rats.
No one has any rights except Americans, and then only at Dear Leader’s discretion under the Military Detainees Act which suspended Habeas Corpus.
If our country continues to be a global rogue and monster, the rest of the fucking planet will eventually unite against us. And it won’t be good for Violent Dave’s bank account, to say the least, which is probably the only thing assholes like Violent Dave give a damn about.
Tim F.
I think that you are a typically logic-challenged oaf who doesn’t understand the meaning of your own argument. John pointed out that the government can detain you or your favorite aunt, torture her and prevent her from ever challenging her captivity. You pointed out that he doesn’t. If it was even a response to John’s point your comment would count as a fallacious appeal to incredulity, plus wrong since you seem to have forgotten US citizen Jose Padilla. But of course your response and John’s point are two entirely different things. And coming from somebody who claims to be a “conservative,” whatever that means these days, I find it painfully funny.
Tim F.
to make the sentence more clear:
…You pointed out that he doesn’t do so…
Jessica
I have a feeling more Democrats are beginning to see the value of the 2nd Amendment, since that might end up being what keeps US from ending up in a gulag somewhere.
cd6
Of course they shouldn’t be able to talk about it.
These prisoners shouldn’t even be allowed to think about what has happened to them.
We should commission some kind of group to enfore this rule. A “thought police,” if you will.
scs
Again I stick to my codify torture idea. It seems that even many Libs agree that some people need a modified Texas defense for torture, as in “he needed torture”. The trick is to make sure only the right people are being tortured at the right time in the right amount. For instance Khalid Sheik Mohammed, well cry me a river – have at it, for all I care. But just some schmoe off the terrorist battlefield, with little evidence against him- not so much.
This torture stuff can be tricky business. The punishment must fit the crime. There should be a way to specify when this could ever take place. But if it comes down to a choice of keeping some scumbag terrorist comfortable or saving hundreds of innocent lives, I say throw the terrorist in the cooler.
Ted
I honestly don’t know what we’re going to do about these Stalinists in our midst. They trust the government implicitly and completely.
RSA
This is a typically liberal point of view. How long will it take moonbats to realize that bad thoughts can no longer be viewed as criminal behavior? We’re in a war against thought.
Walker
Are you talking about torture as a sentence for someone found guilty (like the death penalty) or as an interogation measure? Sounds to me like you are conflating two very different things. The benefit of this equivocation is that you don’t actually have to worry about a trial to inflict the torture. Is that what you are advocating, or am I misreading you?
Perry Como
Listen, moonbat. The President is the Decider and when the President decides the Pelosi is an enemy combatant, he will whisk her away to a CIA happy camp and put her through some Freedom Tickling. Are you okay with that or do you want the terrorists to win?
scs
I would think there would have to be some sort of mini-trial before someone could be tortured. Obviously this would have to be done in a timely manner, but at least there should be SOME justification, able to be accessed by someone, maybe Congress, about why a particular person is being tortured. I think if the CIA had to detail it, they would be much more to cya and only use it for dire circumstances.
Ted
Yes, well that’s always the justification of the brutal dictator and the fascists who support him. But if you start down this path, nothing will restrain the monster at the helm, and it’s better that a hundred ‘terrorists’ go untortured than one innocent person be tortured.
RSA
I think mini-trials are incompatible with ticking time bomb scenarios, but perhaps taking commercial breaks into account–oh, wait, are we talking about TV or reality?
I’m amazed at how many social conservatives (though I don’t know if scs is such) have so quickly turned into “ends justify the means” consequentialists.
Mr. Moderate
Combine this disturbing Soviet style policy with the new DHS policy that goes into effect in January where each U.S. citizen needs individual permission to leave the country, and this story starts getting very disturbing. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023
VidaLoca
KC,
not quite, not yet…
ThymeZone
Absolutely wrong.
Torture is not acceptable. It’s pretty bad when a psycho poster has to learn a lesson from none other than our current feckless President of the United States. But learn from you must. Even he knows, and says, that torture is wrong, and we won’t do it.
Do you think this is a big joke? That he says these things and the trick is to just find the right way to wink at it?
He’ right, the world knows he’s right, and real Americans know he’s right. This country doesn’t defend itself with torture, and no matter what lengths these assholes go to to try to get away with it or wink at it and justify setting up the opportunity for it, it’s still wrong, and it will always be wrong, and you are full of shit.
West Coast libertarian
Why does scs, and those of the same persuasion, keep ignoring the simple fact that torture doesn’t work to elicit useful information. I am opposed to torture on philosophical grounds, but even if I were not, the fact remains that it is not effective.
scs
No I don’t beleieve that’s true. You are kind of making a reverse argument here. For instance, many conservatives think we should outlaw all abortion because if you make one legal, everyone will want to get one – which is obviously not true. I think abortion should be legal for rare circumstances, just as the death penalty should be, and so should torture in rare circumstances, when it is necessary to save lives. We just have to make sure this punishment is applied only in the most compelling of circumstances, just like we do with the death penalty.
scs
There is much information that it works. Not all the time perhaps, but a significant amount of the time. The stats are murky on this as obviously we have not done any controlled experiments on this and we will not ever be able to- but by anecdote we know that it can work. Ask John McCain.
Perry Como
Never try to figure out the motivations of concern trolls.
Ted
I’m not. It fits with their authoritarianism. When the government is in the hands of religious nuts like them, they have no problem vesting total trust in whatever it does. When it isn’t under the control of christian conservatives, they scream bloody murder about how much of a tyrant our democratically elected government is when the vice president makes fund raising phone calls from a publicly funded telephone.
ThymeZone
Produce it.
scs
It depends on what you consider torture. When I talk about torture, I mean coercised interrogation. Torture lite- such as being in uncomfortable temperatures, loud music, bland food, etc. Sorry, but truth be told, I think it better that we torture-lite 100 “innocent” terrorists with loud music and bland food than let one innocent American die.
scs
Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
RSA
A question for the morally bankrupt: What kind of recompense would you expect from the government if you or a loved one were tortured and it turned out the torture victim was innocent and had no useful information to give up? I think some people are in favor of torture because they believe that it would never happen to them or anyone they know.
Ted
I don’t think anyone need bother debating ‘scs’ on the effectiveness of torture and whether or not our country should engage in it. If he thinks our government should ever be involved in that shit, well, I wish he could be sent to his dream place of 1948 Russia.
Anyone who trusts the government to execute the right people, every time, and torture the right people, every time, is not a ‘conservative’. I’m a liberal, and I have less trust in the government than that. Where the hell did the conservatives go?
ThymeZone
Nobody listens. My personal reaction is to spit in your general direction.
Jessica
I think some people are in favor of torture because they enjoy brutality.
ThymeZone
That’s a name, not a set of facts to support an argument.
Produce facts, or shut the hell up.
ThymeZone
Really? Then what I consider torture is what George Bush means when he says that torture is wrong and we don’t do it.
It means what John McCain means when he says that torture is wrong, and we should not do it.
I don’t care what you mean by it. Your crappy judgement has already been established here. You think brain dead people are smiling because they are happy, why the hell would I take your opinion on torture?
scs
Again it depends on what you mean about torture. I am for coercive interogation, not torture. If someone I knew who was innocent was put in a cold room and fed bland food, I would be upset, but I would not necessarily condemn the whole system for it. It’s just like sometimes we put the innocent in jail by mistake, it doesn’t mean we then empty all the prisons, it means we work harder to ensure the innocent are not punished.
As to John McCain, he was known to give up all the information his torturers wanted after he was tortured. He knows first hand that it works.
Pooh
Produced information has a Well Known liberal bias. Hence the Decider Deciding that there should be no more…
Pooh
To sidetrack for a moment, you are either an unbelievable tool, or you play one on TV.
scs
I know it’s cruel to say it, but it’s the truth. We have to face facts and not hide behind partial truths and propaganda and wishful thinking that torture “never” works.
ThymeZone
He knows first hand that it’s wrong, you blithering idiot.
Write him and ask him, you don’t have to take my word for it.
Jessica
If torture were either as effective or humane as some people would have us believe, then it would not be specifically forbidden by the Geneva Convention, nor would Bush have commissioned Alberto Gonzales to concoct a legal opinion in which Bush was not subject to the Geneva Convention regarding torture. Nor would Bush be trying to establish a legal precedent to prevent prisoners from describing their treatment in those secret camps in countries which we all know allow torture.
These things have come about because torture is not effective, nor humane, and therefore not legal.
Ted
‘scs’ proudly announces we should emulate the Viet Cong, folks! (Never mind that he’s spouting bullshit, as he doesn’t really know what came of McCain’s torture sessions.)
These sick, twisted freaks want the USA to become nothing better than something like the Kmher Rouge. It’s very depressing.
Blue Neponset
Best comment on this subject goes to The Carpetbagger:
scs
There’s a thing on waterboarding on Fox now.
Hyperion
i hate guns but am seriously thinking about buying one and learning to shoot it.
why not just leave the name of Darrell unspoken? PLEASE
and finally, scs is (as always) an idiot.
scs
Steve HAarigan is talking abvout volunteering a water boarding episode to see how bad it was.
Perry Como
ROSS: The CIA officers say 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted the longest under waterboarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk, with debatable results.
Mission accomplished!
scs
No I’m just saying life is not black and white, and that it is not true that torture “never” works, and there are rare circumstances where we may have to be coercive to save lives. Let’s just face facts and tell it like it is.
Perry Como
And as a bonus, the would be torturers may kill themselves if they can’t live with the atrocities they are part of.
srv
Sorry, ppG, but McCain didn’t do what he did because it was right. He did it because it got him publicity and made him look like a hero to the media and left.
And then Bush signed his presidential finding saying he would ignore it all, and that he was the sole decider on what ‘torture’ is.
I used to believe this crap about McCain. No longer. Everything he does, he does for spotlight.
Baby Jane
Wouldn’t the next logical step for this administration, in completing this disturbing real-life thriller, be granting a no-bid contract to some company to develop a Manchurian Candidate-esque brainwashing system?
Raymond ShawMy torturer is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.The Disenfranchised Voter
Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong!
I doubt anyone would argue that torture never works, but to say that it works a “significant amount of time” is just plain old bullshit.
The majority of the time torture produces false information, let alone the good possibility of torturing an innocent person.
ThymeZone
Heh. My McCain hatin’ bona fides are already well established here. But your point actually reinforces mine. If torture weren’t wrong and if it weren’t contrary to American values, McCain wouldn’t be coming out against it. Nor would Bush.
What they do when we aren’t looking …. another matter. But what they think is right, that’s clear. They think it’s wrong. That’s because …. it’s wrong.
And scs is dead wrong. A free people cannot live under an “ends justify means” standard. As soon as they accept that, then freedom is just another thing that will get sacrificed on the altar of necessary ends.
Ted
Our sadist ‘scs’ here is implying the ‘Ticking time bomb’ scenario. It’s pure fiction. It doesn’t happen, and it likely won’t happen (no Jack Bauer discovering the nuclear bomb plot just hours before it detonates, and capturing a conspirator). But he’ll gladly authorize the government to routinely do this shit to people many times a year if it means one person in 50 years is actually a terrorist part of an actual terrorism act.
I can’t believe these so-called ‘conservatives’ trust the government this much.
Zifnab
So waterboarding is fine if we define it as coercive interogation, but not fine if we define it as torture? How about stress positions (the modern day equivalent of the rack)? Is it ok if we call it coercive interogation? What happens if we hook a guy up to jumper cables in Abu Garab prison? Is that acceptable so long as we refer to it as coercive interogation?
Do you even know what the hell the defintion of coercive interogation is? This is why debate is dead in America today. I’m waiting for some smarmy politico to wise up and start calling for an end to abortion to be enshrined next to pre-natal medical dilation and evacuation rights, and see how long that flies.
srv
Why is it that everyone thinks bad information is a bad thing?
Perry Como
At least the Republicans have a plan for getting bad information. Where’s the Democrat plan for torturing bad information out of suspects?
scs
Torture is inflicting any physical damage to the body. Coercion is inflicting physical or psychological ‘discomfort’. A big difference and the left is hurting their credibility pretending its the same thing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahahah, Perry.
PotD.
The Disenfranchised Voter
scs,
I suggest reading Kevin Tilman’s open letter if you haven’t already.
The Disenfranchised Voter
scs,
I suggest reading Kevin Tilman’s editorial if you haven’t already.
scs
Okay Phase III waterboarding on reporter Steve Harrigan is being shown on Fox this hour. They showed I and II last hour. Should be interesting to hear what he says about it as this is timely to our discussion.
Ted
Considering there are numerous documented cases in the last five years of the CIA and military committing caged beatings of our prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq, many to the point of death, and considering inflicting hypothermia (which can damage organs, especially the brain) on prisoners in Guantanamo, are you going to defend this notion that we don’t torture?
Probably, but that’s what makes you an authoritarian cultist.
The Disenfranchised Voter
ahh fuck.
Todd
All of this is becauese the plank in George’s eye is getting bigger.
The Disenfranchised Voter
It’s on Fox News scs.
Why not just tell us to watch Pravda to get a better understanding of the Stalinists…
Jessica
Psychological damage is also considered torture.
scs
Well I am against ANY physical damage. That should be a bright line right there. No beatings, no hypothermia to the point of any physical damage. I agree that THAT will more likely lead to bad information. But slow physical ‘discomfort’, unpleasant music, bland food, etc. That will be more like psychological pressure more likely to lead to better information.
scs
Well that might actually be a very good way to understand how they think.
Baby Jane
I want a man with a slow hand
I want torture with an easy touch
I want somebody who will spend some time
Not come and go in a heated rush
I want somebody who will understand
When it comes to torture, I want a slow hand
scs
Written by the Torture Sisters right?
RSA
It’s not the left that’s lacking credibility on torture. I’m perfectly happy, unlike our so-called leaders, to say exactly what counts and doesn’t count as torture. (Some will disagree, but at least we’d be talking about something concrete.)
And on your bright line between physical damage (any? really?) and coercion, it turns out to be pretty easy to inflict significant psychological damage without physical damage: waterboarding (do you think it’s torture?), realistic threats of abuse to loved ones, realistic threats by dogs. . .
One of the reasons that TV demonstrations of such things as waterboarding are not really on point is that it’s a safe environment. Do you think a news reporter would agree to be handed over to, say, some organized crime family along with some waterboarding equipment and have them run a demonstration outside official channels? “No way, they might actually kill me!” That’s the point, isn’t it?
John Cole
Well, SCS, the guy who you said would be enlightening was just on, and he called it torture.
No shit.
scs
I know. I just saw that. But he did say he was fine 5 minutes later. Something like waterboarding should in my opinion be used in only the most extreme cases, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Not for your average terrorist. Bland food for your average terrosrist.
Baby Jane
Missing the point.
Perry Como
I can’t wait for Malkin to jump all over Fox News for showing the terrorists our super-secret not-torture techniques.
Tsulagi
There really is no point in arguing the efficacy of torture with someone like scs or Darrell. He/she/whatever comprise that 27% of the voting population known as The Base. Bush could be at one of his impromptu townhall meetings with the carefully chosen pods banging a grateful Cheney on stage while snorting Haggard’s crystal meth, and they would applaud. Stopping only long enough to say Pelosi would be worse.
So in one hand you have interrogation methods proven over decades by the military and intelligence services to be effective. In the other hand you have torture proven over decades not to work and be counterproductive. Which to use? You know which the retard-seeking missile base will choose because they’ve seen it work on TV and it seems cool. They want to be cool too.
jcricket
The issues with “torture” and coercive interrogation techniques are many, including the following:
1) We apparently do not know whether the people we are holding is guilty between 70 and 90% of the time (this based on how many people in Gitmo and Iraqi prisons we keep releasing). No big surprise, considering the people haven’t had trials. If you torture or mistreat a large number of innocent people you not only get false or useless information, but when you release those people back into their communities, you have created a large number of new enemies, who will in turn create a larger number of new enemies as they spread stories about how they were treated while in captivity.
2) Even if the person is “guilty”, you get a large number of false positives as the person will say anything to get the torture to stop. This is especially true when you go in with biases or false information/bad intelligence. This means you’ll spend a large amount of time investigating useless leads and information.
3) You endorse the idea that anyone who captures our citizens or soldiers is within their rights to torture or “coercively interrogate” them. And you’ve lost any “moral high ground” when arguing otherwise. The next time a Marine commits a war-crime in Haditha, and is then arrested by the Iraqi army or police, how can we complain if they torture him (or her) to get more information?
4) You discourage people and countries from cooperating with us in “turning in their neighbors”. Even if their neighbor is doing something suspicious, you won’t turn them in if you know it means them being tortured or kept in captivity forever (you can see this distrust of the police in minority areas within America and Europe already).
5) As signatories to the Geneva Convention, and a country that doesn’t allow any of the “coercive interrogation techniques” on our own citizens, no matter how guilty and of what crimes, we should be “men of our word”. Bush & Cheney know this, which is why they’ve relied on legalese interpretations of the rules, usually supported only by one or two sympathetic lawyers (and regularly rejected by everyone else, including the Supreme Court).
6) Professionals who interrogate prisoners are not fans of torture. They say that non-coercive and non-torture based interrogation techniques (otherwise known as “making friends”) works far better – that is, produces more useful and reliable information, without false positives and without all the problems outlined above.
So, even though I doubt scs is being honest about his “pragmatic support” of torture, I would challenge him to think bigger picture. These 6 reasons alone, along with other morality-based arguments and issues with potentials for abuse, confusion amongst the troops (see Abu Ghraib), etc. show that the costs of coercion and torture massively outweigh the benefits. There is a good reason we’ve had a “bright line” for the past 50 years regarding how we treat prisoners, even during war-time.
jcricket
Kevin Drum makes two good points about this issue
(Emphasis Mine). Does anyone sense a trend in the way the right wing uses self-reinforcing/circular reasoning as justifications for everything they do? It’s not just torture.
CaseyL
A Japanese soldier convicted of waterboarding a US soldier was sentenced to 19 years in prison.
So, during WWII, waterboarding was considered torture.
Also during that era, one of the many “medical experiments” conducted in Nazi concentration camps was to leave people outside in winter with little or no clothing, to see what exposure did to them.
That was considered a crime against humanity.
Now we’ve got the likes of scs approving of both waterboarding and freezing.
Because, what the rest of humanity considers torture and crimes against humanity, scs and her ilk consider “pragmatic interrogation techniques.”
We’ve come a long way in 50 years, eh?
jcricket
BTW, I don’t doubt that lots of people are like scs in that they just aren’t that bothered by all the problems with torture or coercive interrogation techniques. Seriously, some aren’t even bothered by the possible death of any prisoners, especially if they’re guilty (or just guilty-looking). These moral relativists existed long before 9/11, and it’s our job (the rest of the country) to prevent these people from re-writing our laws. We must always remind ourselves that we do not live in a “ends justify the means” country, and despite it “not bothering some people very much” torture – physical or psychological, is always wrong.
To put it less seriously, these are the same people that don’t get why it’s a bad idea to shop for food when you’re really hungry. Only the stakes are higher. Much higher.
ThymeZone
But CaseyL, as the Fox film explains to you this weekend, our enemies now are worse than the Nazis.
Therefore, adopting their methods to protect ourselves is just common sense.
It is on Fox now as I write, and will be on again later tonight and again tomorrow. Please try to get caught up.
jcricket
Here’s some more on scs’s hero John McCain’s views on torture:
Torture gets you the information you want to get from the torture, but torture doesn’t get you the truth. I don’t particularly define that as “working”.
I’ve never loved McCain, because of a whole host of issues, but I respected his service and especially his views on war-time treatment of prisoners. However, much like Colin Powell, McCain’s permanently tarnished his reputation by capitulating/enabling of President Bush’s suspension of Habeas Corpus:
I suspect McCain will look back and have significant regrets, much like everyone who’s gone along with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the last 6 years.
John S.
Because he KNEW he wasn’t going to endure another X hours of it. Because he KNEW it was all a put-on. Whereas a “terrorist” has no clue how long he will be waterboarded, and therefore will not just be OK five minutes later. See, there is a psychological aspect to torture that doesn’t apply to guy being filmed by a FOX news crew.
Seriously scs, could you be any more of an idiot?
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Yeah, but the victim was one of us, so it’s different. (I know, I know, Jose Padilla. But he doesn’t count.)
I prefer to think of it as a spoof that got out of hand.
Otherwise, this conversation would really, really depress me.
BTW, Godwin’s Law. You can’t compare people to Nazis, even when they act like them.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
I’d also like to submit that arguing with scs constitutes torture.
Well, maybe just psychological pressure, but I’m calling Amnesty International just to be on the safe side.
Pb
You’d think that the fact that we regularly use waterboarding to extract false confessions from US soldiers would give us a hint that it might give us unreliable information. You’d think that, but apparently some people just don’t think, period.
ThymeZone
Sorry Casey, the Fox movie is on at 8 pm ET.
At the moment, on Fox, Al Thomas is busy explaining (I am not making this up) that the decline of approval for the GOP in this election cycle is due to the liberal media bias.
Yes, I am serious. He is actually saying this.
ThymeZone
Damn STUPID UNEDITABLE POSTS. It’s “Cal Thomas”, not “Al Thomas.”
Tsulagi
I’d like to think so. I’m so disappointed in McCain.
In the week before the vote on the Save the Torture/Shred the Constitution legislation, JAG officers testified before Congress in opposition to the MCA. That it violated not only the Geneva Conventions, but also our Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
They risked their careers sticking their necks out offering political cover for the “mavericks” like McCain, Graham, and Warner who said they were opposed to the MCA. Yeah, right. Their opposition turned out to be nothing but a few poodle barks before jumping obediently into Bush’s lap. The mavericks left those JAG officers to twist in the wind while they sold their souls and country for a little Bush/Dobson/Haggard love. Wouldn’t have thought McCain could be bought so cheaply.
Area Man
Sure scs.
On the other hand…
OK, I’m hurting my credibility here…
BTW, the credibility horse wandered off your reservation quite some time ago. Maybe you should follow the trail.
D. Mason
In response to the assertion that torture never works I can safely say that it’s not true. Picture this: You drive up to an ATM late at night, hop out of your car and begin walking towards the cash machine. Before you know it a criminal is on you with a knife to your throat, demanding that you give him your pin number. He’s not very likely to kill you since that won’t get him what he wants, acess to your bank account. He might scream at you, will likely hit you and maybe even stab you. He is using a brand of torture and since he can check the info on ths spot it’s likely to yield reasonable results. Same thing with “terrorist” torture when they can check the facts like passwords, names, phone numbers, addresses etc. For confessions obviously the results are highly dubious, they would only need to torture out a confession when they couldn’t prove the accusations. That alone speaks volumes about the reliability.
Now this is not to be taken as any type of tolerance for torture, just because something works ocasionally in limited circumstances doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea or acceptable begavior, especially on a wide scale. But let’s not kid ourselves, sometimes desirable results can be obtained through dispicable means. We shouldn’t have to pretend it never works to say that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
The point is that it’s conduct which is unacceptable in any society which aspires to label itself a civilization, rather than an assortment of barbarian settlements ruled by brute force and the threat of pain and death. To someone like scs, who is blind to these considerations, the distinction is irrelevant; but to those attempting to attain a clear understanding of, and desire to abide by, the principles upon which this nation was founded, the difference is akin to that between day and night.
I don’t want to violate Godwin’s Law, because Heaven forbid that a relevant point on the nature of barbarism should violate some silly online etiquette ordinance. But it is quite possible for a technologically advanced society with a proud heritage of political liberty and cultural achievement to descend into levels of evil, depravity, and barbarism not seen since Timur the Lame crushed Delhi and made pyramids out of the skulls of its inhabitants. Just ask, er, Godwin, the guy who represents what I’m not supposed to invoke. And torture is the bright line test which separates a society aspiring to civilization from a society aspiring to power over its neighbors at any cost.
I could ramble on about the undesirability of torture, but there’s no point. 90% of you already agree with me, and the other 10% would only agree if I tortured you into it- and even then, not really; you’d only pretend to agree, to stop the torture.
Now back to scs’s fun and games, parsing word definitions while using them interchangeably.
ThymeZone
The proof that torture doesn’t work is right here …. even after an onslaught of posts from the sociopath scs, the very words drilling holes into our skulls and our brains, we refuse to capitulate and to give in to acceptance of the nutty ideas contained in the posts. We resist even when it seems we cannot go on, life has lost all meaning and hope, the future nothing but a sea of black and emptiness and death.
If scs posts can’t bend us to the will of the dark side, then what chance does mere waterboarding have of doing it?
whatsleft
“Before you know it a criminal is on you with a knife to your throat, demanding that you give him your pin number. He’s not very likely to kill you since that won’t get him what he wants, acess to your bank account. He might scream at you, will likely hit you and maybe even stab you. He is using a brand of torture and since he can check the info on ths spot it’s likely to yield reasonable results.” (Sorry I forgot the HTML protocols to box this quote)
The problem here is that it is likely that death will result if you give an incorrect response – or at the least serious bodily injury. And the information is readily verifiable. Torture, unless you’re Jack Bauer, usually does not take place where you can easily verify your information.
Secondly, note the use of the word “criminal” in your description of the torture-applicator. ‘Nuff said.
chopper
hence the bush administration’s attemps to quell prisoners talking about their treatment. problem solved!
chopper
You couldn’t be more wrong, people. If we didn’t have this right to torture people, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?
SPIIDERWEB™
One wonders how many troops in Iraq and Afganistan are truly willing to risk their lives for “this America”. Because that’s exactly where we stand. No one is safe from Bushco.
Come to think of it, the troops may be in even more danger than other Americans because they’ve spent time in “shudder”…Iraq and Afganistan.
tBone
I’ll say this for scs: there’s a certain kind of purity to be found in her utter lack of intellectual integrity.
jcricket
Fixed. Remind you of anything? Oh yeah:
It’s funny how much people on the right lionize the following people, and yet seem to know so little about them.
1) The founding fathers of our country. You know, the ones who invented church-state separation, the checks-and-balances within government and said “those that give up liberty for security deserve neither”
2) The most vicious of anti-communists. You know, like George Orwell, whose every word speaks the truth about what Bush and his cronies are trying to do to America. Watching Hinderaker talk about Bush as a luminary genius, for example, proves what happens when you swallow the party line too hard.
3) Historical luminaries of the “Republican Party”. You know, like Teddy Roosevelt’s who said that anyone who thinks criticizing the president is our patriotic duty.
I can see how hard things are for John. You spend 20 years believing the people around you, only to find it was all a lie just to get elected. And then once elected, the real “master plan” gets put into place. The one with the unnecessary wars, the gay bashing, the torture, the massive borrowing and spending and more importantly, where any oversight or limits on the powers of the people in charge are systematically removed day by day.
Now I’ve never believed conservatives when they say they’re for small government (they just want a different part of the government to be big), or states’ rights or whatever. But even I’m shocked at how far right the party has moved because of how wedded they are to the votes of the religious right and “Big L” Libertarians (like Norquist). But I can see how it would hurt to think those people were the crazies in your party, only to find out they think the same about you, and you’re outnumbered.
Good luck John.
CalD
The thing I can’t figure out is, how the heck could you ever hope to enforce such a law? The way I can think of to make sure no one we snatched and subjected to to “alternative interrogation methods ever told their story, would be to end the (terrorist-loving, America-hating, baby-eating, commie liberal) policy of letting any detainees who are found to be innocent of any crime go free.
TenguPhule
Torture doesn’t work.
Torture is UnAmerican.
Torture is what the BAD GUYS do.
Does anybody still not get this concept yet?
scs
See what I’m getting here from the lefties is that we want to APPEAR to be a civilized soceity. We are concerned about how we LOOK to others. Well I’m sorry, I could give a damn how we look to others if we are saving innocent lives. You are all so intellectually stupid to actually think it better, even morally superior, to let dozens, hundreds of Americans or other innocents die, instead of dunking a known terrorist and mass murderer in water. But to kill that same guy for his crimes- well that’s ok, but for god sakes – just don’t waterboard him first!
This is a juvenile way of thinking, concerned with some platitudes you learned in a college civics class taught by some Euro Pinko professor instead of dealing with the real choices in the real world that effect real lives. Sorry but I and hopefully others will still vote for the people who actually care about saving American lives, not just care about looking good to the Swedes.
Pooh
Professionals* have a well known liberal bias. Hence the effort to remove them from all levels of government.
*Not including pro-football players. They can stay. The only reason they run left is that the field is slanted.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
No, see, it’s not only about appearances. More importantly, it’s about the soul of our nation. I can see why you’d think that that might be the same thing as an appearance- after all, you are the same person who thinks everyone you talk to is DougJ, and everything said is some spoofy lefty talking point, so you’ve never been too astute as to the substance and the substantive points of those who confront you. (Nor have you been particularly astute as to form, either, but that’s not relevant right now.)
The problem with your argument is that all of these hundreds (why not make it millions?) of Americans whose lives have been saved are purely hypothetical; on the other hand, the erosion of our national soul, and our moral descent into a nation of gangsters who view their neighbors as cowardly enemies to be ruled over exclusively by the use and threat of violence, is much easier to observe. Also, in the long run, that national descent will kill far more Americans than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of the Al Qaeda worms ever could.
You’ve taken a society that prided itself as a monument to the finest aspects of the human spirit, a “city on a hill” in the words of Ronald Reagan, and in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of its own citizens you’ve turned into a lair of darkness and evil. That will kill far more Americans in the long run than Al Qaeda. Much like our initial support for the Afghan mujahideen in the 80s, this move has spawned enemies you won’t hear about for another 20-25 years; luckily for you, there’ll probably be another Democrat in office between now and then, so this problem will have a handy scapegoat you can pin it on. Because whenever a Republican leader bungles and gets Americans killed, it’s a Democrat’s fault. And we should worry more about the hypothetical billions and kajillions of American lives saved by torture, rather than the verifiable destruction of our nation’s soul and the attendant (but merely attendant- it is NOT the dominant flaw with legalizing torture) loss of national prestige in the eyes of the world. But please be sure to ask “Why do they hate us?” next time we’re attacked; it’ll almost be endearingly naive when someone mentions Abu Ghraib and you snap on them about the many American lives that place saved.
In case that explanation wasn’t clear, I’ll try a different tack. You see, scs, people find it much less desirable to give their lives serving in the armed forces of a nation of robber-bandits; if we keep this torture shit up, that’s what we are. At the same time, people find it much less desirable to negotiate with a nation of evildoers than with a nation which enshrines the dignity of humanity within its laws and deeds. If you don’t believe me, ask the Taliban. They learned it the hard way when they started torturing and brutalizing people after conquering Kabul in 1996.
Or, you can ask the NKVD. They’re supposedly the ones who invented sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique, maybe they can give you some pointers.
Damn, you’re a good spoof. I have to say that before going on. This is brilliant. Unless you really believe this, in which case I have to say:
Yeah, this is all about some ethics class I took in high school. Maybe it was the one where they taught us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Apparently, those are two documents you’re not too familiar with, but at this point I wouldn’t worry about it. Now that we’ve codified our right to torture people, the rest of the world that’s looked to them for inspiration for the last 230 years will treat them like toilet paper anyway. Ethical teachers in American schools will tell their students it’s all a bunch of bullshit too, and who wants to get their ass shot off for a load of bullshit?
I don’t know how you intend for this society to function once we’ve all decided that it’s bullshit masking the evil powerlust of the plutocrats who dwell on a throne of skulls and blood. Maybe we can threaten people with torture unless they serve in the military or something. I sure hope so, because otherwise our nation will be such a nasty sham and a snarling paper tiger that even the Swedish military could take this place over.
Open a history book someday. Please find me an example of a nation which glorified torture and survived. (It is worth noting that the fall of such nations invariably killed far more than a few hundred citizens.) But why am I wasting my time mentioning this to you? You obviously know more than the pinkos who write books. So please, carry on. Enlighten us all with your defense of Pure Evil.
ThymeZone
FoxNews.
Oh, I thought you said “station.”
Sorry.
jcricket
Uh, simple.
1) Imprison people in secret prisons (secret is important)
2) Keep them there indefinitely, sans trials
2a) If you do have to give people a trial, game the system so the trial is rigged (and so that no evidence is released)
3) Argue in court against any release of any information because it would jeopardize national security
4) Make sure to coercively interrogate many people to non-life. The non-dead will be psychologically damaged enough that no one can trust what they say, right? Especially because “America doesn’t torture” (therefore if they claim they were tortured, they’re obviously lying).
5) Spend several decades in a war aimed at discrediting science and the media
5a) Corrallary – spend at least a decade discrediting the whole notion of listening to foreigners (including your former allies), so if somehow the foreign media reports anything, it is easily ignored as “America hating”.
#5 and 5a are the key. The linchpins, if you will. If you control the people by telling them that there is no objective truth, that no one outside The Party is to be trusted, then you can “enforce the law” (law = Party Line) by just ensuring a significant percentage of Americans will ignore any information to the contrary of what you tell them.
Enforcing the law in the rest of the world is harder, but it doesn’t matter. We will always be at war with Eurasia & Eastasia, apparently. But that’s what the neocons and Bush want. Endless war. If it’s not Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s Iran and North Korea. If it’s not those countries, it will be something else in the middle east or South American (Chavez anyone?)
DougL
I don’t have a problem with this.
How do you know whether the suspect in question is the next Khalid Sheik Mohammed or just another “schmoe off the terrorist battlefield”? Habeas Corpus. Except this administration ain’t so crazy about Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus doesn’t mean that you can’t pick people up and interrogate them. It does mean that once you’ve picked someone up, you’d better be able to make your case that it is the next Khalid Sheik Mohammed and not just some schmoe.
RSA
Someone who calls waterboarding “dunking in water” accuses others of stupidity? You might as well call rape an “insertion procedure” or pulling out fingernails “non-permanent body modification”. Not to mention the conflation of known and suspected terrorists.
Mike S
scs
Please just shut the fuck up. You proved your stupidity when you first came here during the Schiavo debacle and every post since has only made you look like more of a git.
scs
Well that’s the issue then – not torture in general. We need to have some sort of legal procedure to be able to use forced interogation for the worst of the worst, to use for the most extreme cases- and make sure it is not being used for just routine interogation. Again, I still think if we specify exactly when and to whom we can use it for, it will cut down on this current CIA “freelancing”, with no one on record to account for it. We can have a Clintonian Third Way here.
Perry Como
Great. Blow jobs for terrorists.
chriskoz
Yea. Without bad info how would we have gotten Americans to support the glorious Iraq war?
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Hey, that would work at least as well as torture.
Shygetz
No, I for one want to ACTUALLY live in a civilized society.
But, I am happy to make this bright-line rule–the President can torture whoever he wants, so long as he undergoes the exact same treatment simultaneously as the prisoner. Everytime we dunk the prisoner, we dunk the President. If it’s important enough to national security, the President should take it like a man.
Jack Bauer would do it.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
This would definitely make the blowjob-torture technique by far the most popular.
J. Edgar Hoover would probably do it, too, but I wouldn’t trust his motives. He probably did it every Friday night regardless.
RSA
Actually, I think it should be Jenna or the other daughter; the comparison is to people who may not have any useful information.
John D.
Fuck you.
Most Americans I know, from Left, Right, and Center, are concerned with *being* a civilized nation. It’s these fuckers in power now who are terrified of APPEARING weak.
The issue with torture (or coercive techniques, which is the same damn thing under a different label) is not that “it works” or “it doesn’t work”. It’s twofold — it demeans us as a people, and it makes a determination of guilt impossible.
For you to call *anyone* “intellectually stupid” is so brazen as to be breathtaking. You, who continually puts that cart before the horse in this discussion. For your argument to make any sense at all, you have to assume that we are torturing — excuse me, *coercing* — these guys since we know they are terrorists with information we need to save innocent lives.
Except, we don’t.
We are torturing — excuse me again, coercing — these guys to find out *if* they are terrorists. You want a confession? No problem. Torture is startlingly good at getting people to confess. Even the innocent. Perhaps even especially the innocent, since they are not expecting to be tortured for something they did not do.
What’s that you say? We know they are terrorists?
They why the fuck do we keep releasing hundreds of them, once we discover their confessions to be false?
Go ahead, give me a scenario where torture will save American lives. I dare you.
I didn’t learn this shit in a “college civics class”, scs. I wasn’t taught by a “Euro Pinko professor”.
I was taught this at Ft. Huachuca, by officers and NCOs of the US Army in 1991, when I trained as an interrogator for them. Hard to believe we’ve fallen as a country so far in 15 years.
You disgust me.