President Bush Vetoes Legislation to Ban Waterboarding!!

[Avi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

This, sadly enough, doesn't surprise me all that much, but it does piss me off like no other.

Thoughts?

[HairyHeretic]

Colour me unsurprised.

[NightBird]

Totally, utterly, nauseatingly unsurprised.

[Hunter]

Something that I'm sure the next president will use to his advantage.

Still...ugh

[Sabby]

I must have deaf ears for politics, because I don't understand whats so bad and predictable. Then again, I'm not from the states...

[NightBird]

Here's a reasonable description of waterboarding and the issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

The political controversy involves the current administration's belief that international accords on torture do not apply to them. The one-time Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint.' Most Americans disagree and many keep reminding themselves that there were questionable issues in both elections. To put it mildly, the current administration is controversial. This is all part of an overall picture of the current administration's activities that includes the Abu Ghraib scandal involving prisoner abuse in Iraq and the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and destruction of information related to the conduct at that facility.

Thus, it is not an isolated incident, it fosters strong feelings, and those who believe in civil liberties tend to become a tad cynical when presented with yet more proof of its lack within the Bush admistration.

[Trieste]

Excellent politics, and good on him for standing up for what he believes is the right thing. Well done. This doesn't mean I agree or disagree, but let me explain:

Limiting interrogation techniques is a very politically correct move. He could have just signed it to win brownie points. In fact, the only reason this legislation is getting any attention at all is because he vetoed it. Had he signed it, it would have gotten a "Hey, good. Of course he'll sign something like that." and then you would have moved on with your lives. But if his reasoning is to be believed, then you have to kind of admire him for sticking to his guns and ignoring "the advice of 43 retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers, who supported the bill.". The fact that so many people aren't surprised by this *points up* supports the assertion that he is actually sticking to his administrative guns, rather than simply doing this to piss people off.

This doesn't mean that I don't want proof to support his statements. Especially this one:

"Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland," the president said.

And the way he actually announced it himself makes for smart politics. It gives him the chance to step up, explain it, and give his reasoning on the offensive, instead of waiting for, say, Hillary Clinton (perish the thought) to dig up the veto and use it as ammo against whomever her Republican opponent may be. It is much better in politics, in general, to be the one making the announcement and going on the offensive about something like this. Waiting for someone else to bring it up so you can get defensive is just really really really stupid. Not to mention inconvenient.

Credit where credit is due. Kudos to Bush. Now get him the hell out of office.

[NightBird]

I simply must, however, raise the interpretive (and possibly rhetorical) question:

How much difference is there between 'sticking to one's administrative guns' and the state of total pig-ignorant stubbornness?

Actually, as I think about it, that may be more of a serious question that I'd originally envisioned. Where ought a line be drawn? Or does it boil down to the old prayer about the wisdom to tell the difference, which means it's all, in effect, a matter of perspective, like whether one believes in ghosts... or the Holy Spirit, for that matter?

[Brandon]

There are a few things that need to be cleared up. 1. This bill was not just about waterboarding, it included many interrigation techniques used by the United states military, FBI, and CIA over the last decade. Waterboarding itself was taken out of the approved interrogation techniques that are listed in the Army field manual. I believe that was in 2005 so I dont even know why its an issue today. 2. Waterboarding is not classified as torture because the prisoners head is not submerged in water. The distinction is small but it is there and the field manuals that I read in 2000 and 2001 were very clear about that.

Waterboarding is an interrigation technique that dates back to and possibly before the spanish inquisition. It has been used in almost every major conflict as a last means resort to get information from prisoners. It was used in vietnam (as my father can verify) and I know that my grandfather mentioned naval officers using such a tactic in World war 2. I find it disgusting that after centuries of it being used we look at banning a valuable tool to force information out of our enemies just because of our current administration.

[Elvi]

Water Boarding:
The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

[kongming]

Indeed, it is torture, plain and simple. I am disappointed that it has been used so long - it wasn't right before the Spanish inquisition, it wasn't right during it, it wasn't right through WW2 and Vietnam and it isn't right now.

And that is before we mention the bit about torture being so useless it's actually counter-productive.

Yes, they also wanted to remove some other interrogation techniques: forcing people to stand for 40+ hours at a time (hands up who here can easily do an 8 hour workday on your feet with no breaks? Now imagine it five times as long), soaking prisoners with water then placing them in a hard, cold (not freezing, though, we're not barbarians!) cell for extended periods of time, and slapping their tummy.

No, seriously. That sounds really stupid. "BELLY SLAP!" But it does hurt, while not causing damage, and I imagine it's not a case of slapping them each time they lie, but extended sessions of being hit, until they agree to tell everything.

So one can't even say "Well, I don't like the waterboarding part, but it's not worth losing all the other fine interrogation techniques for."
Sorry, you can say it, but not with a straight face.

[Elvi]

I think the article I cited just about says it all....

[kongming]

The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album.

I know it's serious business, but I'm trying not to laugh. I mean, I always said Eminem's "music" was so bad it could be used as torture, but here they are, doing exactly that.

Just read the link now, and yeah, that lists even more than the first site and the BBC article. More information as well.
It's kind of sad, really.

[Elvi]

*nods*
I had to titter at the 'rap' torture too...

[Brandon]

Sorry but it pisses me off how an interrigation technique that was created and used before the geneva convention was written was not banned in it or soon after it. Its only because of peoples bias against the bush administration that its finally coming up and being looked at seriously. Its one thing to take a look at all these things and believe they are wrong (I dont agree but thats just my opinion) and say they should be outlawed. Its quite another to take it and use it as a political tool against an administration. Its been brought up by politicians and normal people alike but its not about doing the right thing for them, its about finding ammo to use against the Bush administration. The fanatical bias is my biggest problem with this whole situation. God knows I dont like them much either but if you're going to do something do it because its the right thing to do, not because its a useful weapon against someone you hate

As far as counter-productive all the techniques can be counter-prodicutive but if supervised properly remain useful tools to get information out of prisoners.

People are starting to look at Torture as any kind of discomfort and thats not the definition. The definition is 1. "anguish of body or mind" and 2. "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure". I dont see any of those techniques as causing intense pain or anguish in a persons mind or body but I can see someone thinking twice about withholding something important

So now that that was said, tell me your opinion on why a technique like this wasnt outright banned or mentioned when international laws were written. It has been used across the world by various goverments since the late 1400's so it seems unlikely that to me that it wouldnt be mentioned

Finally, the rap thing was hilarious

[Elvi]

"The definition is 1. "anguish of body or mind" and 2. "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure". I dont see any of those techniques as causing intense pain or anguish in a persons mind or body but I can see someone thinking twice about withholding something important"

Please, do enlighten me Brandon, how do these techniques work, if they are not causing 'anguish in body and mind'?

[Swedish Steel]

They are belly slapping them with cozy pillows of goodness!

[Jefepato]

I'd like to have a look at the text of the bill.

I'm guessing, Brandon, that the Geneva Convention didn't ban it because many governments wanted to keep using it.  But why it wasn't banned before is quite irrelevant when considering whether it ought to be banned now.  The timing of this legislation might be politically convenient, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush should have signed it (unless there's more to it that we're not being told).

Really, we should just stick to the comfy chair for interrogation.

[NightBird]

Quite frankly, the men who were involved in the Geneva Conventions were well aware of how creative the human animal can be in committing acts of cruelty, considering many of them who authored the first of the conventions had direct knowledge of both world wars. Much of their rationale, according to the books and selections of letters that I've read, was to provide definitions that would account for more of a usable definition than a laundry list of likely ever-changing techniques... as the rap torture would seem to prove.

As for why the Bush administration in particular makes the topic of greater concern, his Attorney General's statement that the Geneva Conventions were 'quaint' and no longer applicable, the continuing track record of deception, twisting of international law, destruction of evidence and wilfull blindness to all other arguments than what support whatever they want to do has a lot to do with it. I can only speak for myself, but I'm confident there are many others like me who simply don't TRUST the current administration to use any power given them carefully or wisely.

[Hunter]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm confident there are many others like me who simply don't TRUST the current administration to use any power given them carefully or wisely.

And now you know how I felt about the previous administration.  Not that I like the current one much more.

[Elvi]

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Yes, that seems to be so quaint doesn't it?




Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture said:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labelled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.”

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, concurred by stating, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he believes waterboarding violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

[Elvi]

I apologise, I was distracted and didn't actaully make my point when I posted a the above information.

Basicly, I don't give a toss if it's election year in the US and that others may be scoring points off the present US administration.
What I care about is the fact that Bush listens to no-one, not even his own people and then claims that he is standing upon the moral high ground.

[Trieste]

I'd like to have a look at the text of the bill.

Radio address discussing the veto: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080308.html

Text of bill: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-478.html

Section 327 appears to be the relevant one, though there aren't any particular bells or whistles.

This appears to be the relevant field manual: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf
I found the manual link from Wikipedia, which labels it "circa September 28, 1992 (Current version, soon to be replaced.)"
(Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_34-52_Intelligence_Interrogation)

I believe that's all the relevant stuff for people who want to do more reading.

[RubySlippers]

United States of America21
Upon signature :

Declaration:

"The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary."

Upon ratification :

Reservations:

"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.

(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.

(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.

(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.

(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'

(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.

(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.

(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.

III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

We made our signing conditional this is from the UN site with a list of participating nations and such conditional acceptances by various nation, since its clear we placed ourselves under this in respect to the Courts interpretation of it under our Consitution, they decide how far this applied by the United States. And with that the will and intent of Congress under the law as we signed this as well if there is no conflict Constitutionally.

And what about the duty of the President to "serve and protect the people of the United States" surely he may have to authorize some extreme measures to do that when dealing with criminals intent on attacking us, if they were uniformed or partisan soldiers they would have rights. Even freedom fighters under orders of a government defending their home soil have clear rights. They are clearly in a rather grey area with terrorist radicals right now in our country. What are we supposed to do if , fate help us, they get a nuclear device and we have in our hands people involved go we can't torture them and let them use this device or torture them as needed to break them and get the information to save lives? What about a car bombing campaign or similar lesser threat? When is the good of one foreign national more important than many innocent American lives?

[Trieste]

There's no rules sticky in this forum, but since it's labeled 'general news' instead of politics and religion, I'm going to assume it's for discussion of news only and not general administrative politics.

In light of that, all I'm going to say here is I heartily, one hundred per cent, without reservation disagree with the way you're approaching this, RubySlippers. I believe you missed the point of the article.

[NightBird]

All I will say in this forum (and I will not post in this thread again) is that the arguments in favor of harsh measures up to and including torture all presume that the person on the receiving end of this treatment 'deserves' to be there for some reason (such as confirmed, proven criminal actions) or does in fact have vital intelligence that s/he is refusing to relinquish. In fact, this is not always or even typically the case. Interrogation takes place with suspects more often than people who have already been proven to have vital information or to have committed a crime. Beyond the larger issues of ethics for the use of harsh measures ever on anyone, I cannot in conscience agree with putting any innocent person through this sort of treatment on suspicion that the person might know something, and there is no way to prevent it.

That any human being can accept, let alone condone a practice that can and likely will result in the torture of innocents saddens me deeply, but as an historian it does not surprise me.

[Elvi]

Post modified:

Firstly because I did not see NightBird's post and secondly because I do NOT wish to answer Ruby.....

[RubySlippers]

But I'm still arguing attacking Bush for preserving one method of gaining information is not illegal And I was countering the point made by another writer here on the first part of the Ban on Torture. That the United States signed it with clear and considered protections of our right to use it in cases where its not contrary to our Consitution.

Elvi started it. I just pointed out that my country signed the treaty with provisions and conditions set by Congress.

[Elvi]

What?
Hell....I have NEVER heard anything so juvennile on this site as the above comment.

Go on Ruby.....please, tell me WHAT I started, that way I'll know whether to pull your pigtails in the playground or go tell Miss.....

[Trieste]

*cough* Adding to the ridiculousity doesn't actually lessen it ... ^^;

*wanders elsethread now*

[Jefepato]

That the United States signed it with clear and considered protections of our right to use it in cases where its not contrary to our Consitution.

The federal government of the United States is forbidden from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court confirmed in Wilkerson v. State of Utah that torture is cruel and unusual punishment.

Thus, no cases exist where torture isn't contrary to the Constitution.

It's not about valuing one foreign national over many American lives.  It's about not being the kind of country that commits atrocities.

(Besides, torture isn't all that great for obtaining information anyway.  People being tortured will say anything to make it stop, and that "anything" is frequently not the truth.)

[Hunter]

The federal government of the United States is forbidden from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court confirmed in Wilkerson v. State of Utah that torture is cruel and unusual punishment.

Thus, no cases exist where torture isn't contrary to the Constitution.

It's not about valuing one foreign national over many American lives.  It's about not being the kind of country that commits atrocities.

(Besides, torture isn't all that great for obtaining information anyway.  People being tortured will say anything to make it stop, and that "anything" is frequently not the truth.)

Agreed on all points.  Except that the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals.  If it did, there wouldn't be a need for diplomatic immunity.

[Celestial Goblin]

It's not about valuing one foreign national over many American lives.  It's about not being the kind of country that commits atrocities.

Very True.
Conttitution is like a crotch protector. It protects the vital parts, but it doesn't cover everything.

[Jefepato]

Agreed on all points.  Except that the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals.  If it did, there wouldn't be a need for diplomatic immunity.

The Constitution explicitly outlines, and limits, what the federal government can do.  There's no provision stating that the government's powers suddenly expand when a foreign national shows up.  The federal government of the United States is legally forbidden to torture, period.

Diplomatic immunity is necessary to safeguard diplomats in foreign nations.  I don't understand why you say the Constitution would eliminate that necessity.

[Hunter]

The Constitution explicitly outlines, and limits, what the federal government can do.  There's no provision stating that the government's powers suddenly expand when a foreign national shows up.  The federal government of the United States is legally forbidden to torture, period.

Diplomatic immunity is necessary to safeguard diplomats in foreign nations.  I don't understand why you say the Constitution would eliminate that necessity.

How can I explain this?  The federal government can't just deport someone who was born in the country.  To say that it's not an "expanded" power isn't technically true.  Visitors/foreign nationals simply don't have the same "rights" as those who are citizens.  Grated, it's splitting hairs....

[Jefepato]

Of course they don't have the same rights when it comes to, say, staying in the country; all sovereign nations have the power to deport foreign nationals.  That has little to do with the application of the Constitution -- there's no amendment forbidding the government to deport anyone.

[Hunter]

Of course they don't have the same rights when it comes to, say, staying in the country; all sovereign nations have the power to deport foreign nationals.  That has little to do with the application of the Constitution -- there's no amendment forbidding the government to deport anyone.

And that's where it starts to get blurry and where the issue is.  How much protection does someone not a citizen get?  How about someone who's actively taken arms against the citizenry?  Again, I don't believe that torture (however you define it) is really a useful interrogation technique.

[Jefepato]

The Eighth Amendment lists things that the government can't do, without qualification as to who they might want to do it to.  It makes no sense to question how much protection someone gets under it.

The Eighth Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment shall not be infringed;" if it did, you could argue over whether foreign nationals or people taking up arms against the U.S. were part of "the people."  As written, though, there's no ambiguity to be found.

[Hunter]

Nor is there in the definition of "Treason" either.  Nor in the 2nd Amendment concerning the right to bear arms, yet many people would gladly see "arms" outlawed (inspite of said Constitutional protections but that's another subject).

But to counter your point, I refer you to the 11th Amendment. 

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Again, I think it's a bit blurry.  You disagree.   I'll leave it at that, okay?

[Jefepato]

I'm familiar with the 11th Amendment, but I honestly have no idea what point you're countering with it.

[Hunter]

I'm familiar with the 11th Amendment, but I honestly have no idea what point you're countering with it.

Whether it applies to foreign nationals or not.  Does "The People" refer to citizens or every human being?

But then again, I'm not a lawyer either.  Probably the reason for my ambiguity on the subject.

[Jefepato]

Whether it applies to foreign nationals or not.

"It" being the Constitution?

It doesn't really make any sense to say "the Constitution applies to foreign nationals" or "the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals."  The Constitution applies to the government.  It gives the government its powers, and the government doesn't have any powers that the Constitution doesn't grant it.

If anything, the fact that the 11th Amendment speaks separately of U.S. citizens and foreign citizens supports my argument: clearly, where foreign citizens are meant to be addressed differently, it says so!

(For the record, the effect of the 11th Amendment is that an individual can only sue a state if he's a citizen of that state; if not, federal courts can't hear his case, regardless of whether he's a citizen of one of the other 49 or of another country entirely.  It deals with the sovereign powers of the individual states, not the rights of foreigners in particular.)

But then again, I'm not a lawyer either.  Probably the reason for my ambiguity on the subject.

I'm not either, but in five more semesters I will be.  I have Constitutional Law tomorrow, so I'll see if I can get any insight from the professor on the Eighth Amendment prohibition.

[Hunter]

"It" being the Constitution?

It doesn't really make any sense to say "the Constitution applies to foreign nationals" or "the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals."  The Constitution applies to the government.  It gives the government its powers, and the government doesn't have any powers that the Constitution doesn't grant it.

If anything, the fact that the 11th Amendment speaks separately of U.S. citizens and foreign citizens supports my argument: clearly, where foreign citizens are meant to be addressed differently, it says so!

(For the record, the effect of the 11th Amendment is that an individual can only sue a state if he's a citizen of that state; if not, federal courts can't hear his case, regardless of whether he's a citizen of one of the other 49 or of another country entirely.  It deals with the sovereign powers of the individual states, not the rights of foreigners in particular.)

I'm not either, but in five more semesters I will be.  I have Constitutional Law tomorrow, so I'll see if I can get any insight from the professor on the Eighth Amendment prohibition.

Yes.  I'm not going to disagree whether or not human beings should have those rights/protections.  THEY SHOULD. What I'm wondering is where the Constitution actually provides equal protection just because someone is human.  And what defines human....

[Schwarzepard]

Here's an interesting article about waterboarding.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23199

[Jefepato]

Here's an interesting article about waterboarding.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23199

Very interesting, yes.  I suppose we're to believe that 90 seconds of something that absolutely is not torture made this guy confess.

There are some means that no end can justify.

[Schwarzepard]

Very interesting, yes.  I suppose we're to believe that 90 seconds of something that absolutely is not torture made this guy confess.

There are some means that no end can justify.

Waterboarding and other forms of torture justify the end of saving my life, your life, the lives of people we care about, and many other people's lives.  The lives of the people who are getting waterboarded and tortured in other ways aren't worth shit because of what they've chosen to do with their lives.  Had they decided not to support or act on behalf of organizations dedicated to killing you, me and everyone else who won't obey them, they wouldn't be getting waterboarded.  As for the people who got waterboarded even though they were innocent, it's a damn good thing they got waterboarded which inflicts no physical injury rather than getting a more physical torture.

Seriously, these terrorist assholes are dedicated to ending our lives.  Waterboarding doesn't give them even 1% of the pain and suffering they have inflicted on other people.  Considering what they've done and what they are constantly trying to do, they're getting over. 

[kongming]

...that's just moronic.

If you're torturing someone who doesn't have the information you need - an innocent - then you are committing an atrocity for no good reason, and the only way they can stop it is by lying. You will cause mental trauma, possibly even drive them insane, and cause them to hate you. You have now just made a new enemy, possibly causing them to join "Team Terror".

You just lost the game, and let the terrorists win by doing that. That being said, when they turn your country into a dictatorship with a ruler who relies on fear, and people are too scared to live their lives normally, the terrorists have already won.

So, we get someone who does have the information. Let's use the same example that pro-torture people love to use: they hid an atom bomb somewhere below the city. So, you know for a fact that this person knows the location. In one hour, it's going to explode if you can't find and disarm it. What do you do?

That person is willing to blow a city up. They're probably insane at this point. They might very well be willing to die or undergo an hour of torture just for their goals to be achieved. So you still don't get the info - torture isn't helping you here.

But they don't even have to be willing to undergo that. They could, you know, lie. Seeing as an innocent you're torturing certainly will lie for it to stop - and let's face it, they will because it's the only option they have - an actual terrorist will do the same thing, both to end/pause the torture or to mess you around. So, time is ticking. They say the bomb is under the monument. Half an hour is wasted deploying people there and searching the area. You torture them some more and they say "Okay okay, it's under the primary school."
You waste another half hour, and guess what? It was under the hospital. Game over. Once again, your torture had zero effect.

Of course, if you are willing to torture people, then your enemies are also going to be willing to do it to you. Every time you commit an atrocity against them, you are fuelling their hatred, providing them with martyrs, proving to them that you actually are the bad guy they think you are, and also convincing the rest of the world that they shouldn't help you.

There are records and statistics that back up what I say, but frankly, I can't be bothered searching for them when the other person is likely to just say "Nah, I still think you're wrong, and those statistics are lies invented by communists!"

So, torture makes more enemies, and almost never succeeds. Most people know this, and yet a few countries still do it. There are really only two reasons this could be:
1. To be "the bad guys". To scare others just on principle - especially to control their own innocent populace with fear.
2. For their own sick pleasure. The people who order these things to be done? I just bet they're beating off under the table.

[Schwarzepard]

No, Kong, it's not moronic.  My life and the lives of others are more important than the wellbeing of a person intent on doing me and other people harm.

Waterboarding works, that's been established.  The argument is about whether or not the US government should do it.  I think it should for the reason stated above.

The enemies of the US already routinely torture.  It's standard for them.  Their hatred is fuelled by their religious and ideological teachings.  That's why they kill each other when they're not killing Westerners and Israelis.

I do think you're wrong, not because I cast doubt on the sources you didn't bother to provide but because your example was pointless and the logic on which I base my conclusions is sound.

[HairyHeretic]

So what about those people who were picked up and tortured and hadn't actually done anything? Do you remember this case?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

You say waterboarding works. I expect it does. I expect if you were waterboarded you'd confess to just about anything too. Doesn't mean much though, does it?

Do you think you can maintain any claim to moral high ground if you torture others? At that point you accept the rational of 'the end justifies the means', which is the same one that your enemies hold. At that point, how can you say you're better than them?

[Sherona]

The bigger picture, i think, is NOT whether or not people approve of torture...but whether waterboarding is torture..

Dont shoot me..I am not sayng its NOT...just saying that people's justification for supporting htis veto is that the do not believe that Waterboarding is Torture.

Ask most of the people supporting such measures if they aggree with not allowing a prisoner to have any form or water for 3 days, and then as dehydration really sets in hold a glass of water just out of reach until they confess, and they will say No, thats inhumane..

*shrugs* Not for waterboarding at all....So PLEASE don't call me moronic or what not....kind of a dont shoot the messenger, but there you have it.

The real debate is not SHould we torture or should we not...the real debate is ...IS waterboarding torture or isn't it?

[Jefepato]

Waterboarding works, that's been established.

Waterboarding works when you have the right guy and he's too stupid to lie.  That's been established.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/69363/

HeretiKat, what makes your life and the lives of others more important the the well-being of people who want to do you harm?  If we consider torture an acceptable way to deal with our enemies, the answer is nothing.

The bigger picture, i think, is NOT whether or not people approve of torture...but whether waterboarding is torture..

It really isn't.  Anyone who denies that waterboarding is torture is either unaware of the details or willfully blind.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Actually instead of debating whether or not water boarding is torture or not.  We should be asking why this President has not been impeached. I mean we impeached a president for getting his Willy wanker played with.   It seems to me this President has a long list of betrayal to the American public.  Far more serious then if a president is been unfaithful to his spouse. 

[Schwarzepard]

In the cases we're discussing, the US had the right guy, the guy who planned the 9-11 attacks, a guy smart enough lie. 
Waterboarding got very useful information out of him, details enough to keep other members of his organization from killing people.  I read your link and it doesn't support your statement since waterboarding works.

What makes my life and the lives of others more important than the wellbeing of those who want to harm said lives is their  relentless efforts  to force me and others to obey them on pain of death.  If they value my life, wellbeing, and personal autonomy so little, then I don't value theirs at all.  It's prevention of harm to myself and others.  Is your life worth nothing?  I don't think so.  I'd waterboard some asshole to keep his friends from harming you or most other people.

One thing I never do is claim any sort of moral high ground.  I don't have any emotional stake in claiming I'm better than anybody, so I don't play that game.  I don't need to justify preventing someone from harming me or others, especially when they are trying to harm me for their own religious or ideological reasons.

Sher, in my opinion, waterboarding absolutely is torture.  The claims that it isn't come from the legalese of definitions, but that aside, its torture.  I also think that sending someone to prison for stealing cars or some other non-violent offense and them getting raped and beaten repeatedly is torture.  Letting someone linger in suffering because the law won't allow physician assisted suicide is torture.  Putting so much dowry pressure on East Indian girls that they commit suicide is torture.  Most societies torture in these and other ways.  Since they do, I really don't have a problem with torturing terrorists to prevent their organizations from hurting and killing people. 

As for the ends justifying the means, a great many people in the world hold that opinion, not just my enemies.  Maybe that's because it has some merit.

The article mentioning Maher Arar offers no evidence of his torture beyond his own claims, which or may not be true.  The article doesn't address what reason the US had for deporting him to Syria.  It's not a good support for the statement.

[Sherona]

Actually instead of debating whether or not water boarding is torture or not.  We should be asking why this President has not been impeached. I mean we impeached a president for getting his Willy wanker played with.   It seems to me this President has a long list of betrayal to the American public.  Far more serious then if a president is been unfaithful to his spouse. 

again this is nto realy the issue of this thread. Not a bush fan here...actually..now that I think about it I am not a fan of ANY politician *shrugs*

[Hunter]

Actually instead of debating whether or not water boarding is torture or not.  We should be asking why this President has not been impeached. I mean we impeached a president for getting his Willy wanker played with.

Out of curiousity (I already know what the majority of the board thinks), shouldn't someone who's lied about having sex with a subordainte (yeah, my spelling sucks) shouldn't be disciplined?  Just because he was president he should get special treatment for breaking the same rules that the rest of us have to follow?

[Swedish Steel]

It only cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, and it was totally worth it to! Who does he think he is, it is our right to know who he is screwing, damn it!

[Schwarzepard]

Out of curiousity (I already know what the majority of the board thinks), shouldn't someone who's lied about having sex with a subordainte (yeah, my spelling sucks) shouldn't be disciplined?  Just because he was president he should get special treatment for breaking the same rules that the rest of us have to follow?

There's no law that I know of against his having an affair, unless he committed sexual harrassment.
In his particular case, President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury.  He broke American law, no doubt about it.  He was disbarred in his home state of Arkansas because of it, and now he is no longer allowed to practice law (he was a qualified lawyer before he was a politician).  As president, his popularity was very strong.  I think it was strong enough that he could have stated that he had made a mistake in his marriage, and that he and his wife were dealing with it.  That way people could have criticized his character for cheating on his wife, but no one would have been able to criticize him for breaking the law.  Further attacks would have made his opponents look even worse.  Unfortunately he lied about it and that gave his opponents something more effective to use against him.

I'm not sure he got treatment that was so special.  Plenty of people commit perjury and get away with it.   

[Hunter]

There's no law that I know of against his having an affair, unless he committed sexual harrassment.
In his particular case, President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury.  He broke American law, no doubt about it.  He was disbarred in his home state of Arkansas because of it, and now he is no longer allowed to practice law (he was a qualified lawyer before he was a politician).  As president, his popularity was very strong.  I think it was strong enough that he could have stated that he had made a mistake in his marriage, and that he and his wife were dealing with it.  That way people could have criticized his character for cheating on his wife, but no one would have been able to criticize him for breaking the law.  Further attacks would have made his opponents look even worse.  Unfortunately he lied about it and that gave his opponents something more effective to use against him.

I'm not sure he got treatment that was so special.  Plenty of people commit perjury and get away with it.   

Actually my point was more that if an executive of a company is caught doing similiar, you'd expect them to be at least demoted, maybe even fired.

[Swedish Steel]

Yeah. Clinton should just have started a war under false pretenses, there'd be no end to the crack pots climbing over eachother to defend him then!

[kongming]

Swede: I'd laugh, but it's sad because it's true.

Hunter: generally, they're expected to resign. Presumably they can be an ass and not resign though. Unless that's code for "You're fired. But resign first and it doesn't show up on your record as being fired."

Heretikat: If it was in Australia, he could have completely gotten away with it if he had just come out and said "Yeah, I had an affair." Although it was generally considered amusing that Americans all declared "What? Huh? Our President LIED to us!!!" and were shocked. We just accept the fact that, as politicians, our prime ministers will always be liars.

It makes it a lot easier (and a lot less surprising) if you just assume from the start that your prime minister/president/whatever hates you and lies to you.

[Jefepato]

Don't be silly, KM.  Very few Americans were genuinely shocked (although it is surprising that someone as smart as Bill Clinton would say something verifiably false under oath); most were just seizing on an opportunity to try and get rid of him.

[Hunter]

Hunter: generally, they're expected to resign. Presumably they can be an ass and not resign though. Unless that's code for "You're fired. But resign first and it doesn't show up on your record as being fired."

And yet people seem to think that he shouldn't have suffered an impeachment trial for it.  What's the difference?

[Schwarzepard]

He was popular.

[kongming]

You'd be amazed at what you can get away with when you're president. After all, let us assume that it wasn't the lying they cared about with the impeachment - otherwise no president would ever make the full term, and Bush has done that every time he's opened his mouth. But if you can get away with crimes against humanity, one would think a little oral sex is forgiveable.

Just looking through my "latest news from the BBC" (that is to say, a much more reliable site than Faux News, CNN etc. but still with a Pro-England/America/Australia/Europe/Israel leaning) list: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292974.stm

That wasn't even by searching for anything. It's just the latest in Bush allowing his agents to kidnap and torture people.