Torture Doesn't Work
Our President recently admitted that the torture techniques used at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, were approved by the Vice President’s “Principals Committee”, “I’m aware our national-security team met on this issue. And I approved.” He justified this action by saying that thousands of American lives were saved. But finally an important former CIA Officer, Milt Bearden has spoken out against this Big Lie.
The administration’s claims of having “saved thousands of Americans” can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. All the public gets is repeated references to Jose Padilla, the Lakawanna Six, the Liberty Seven and the Library Tower operation in Los Angeles. If those slapstick episodes are the true character of the threat, then maybe we’ll be okay after all.
When challenged on the lack of a game-changing example of a derailed operation, administration officials usually say that the need to protect sources and methods prevents revealing just how enhanced interrogation techniques have saved so many thousands of Americans. But it is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
John McCain used to want to close down Guantanamo Bay, but last week he called the Supreme Court decision in favor of the detainees, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” He can’t have it both ways. Yesterday the very conservative Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the government evidence against a Chinese Guantanamo detainee who has been seeking redress for five years was straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.
The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”
“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This travesty must end. Its clear where Obama stands on this issue. As for John McCain, it’s not so clear. If this election does nothing more than restore the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law and America’s honor–it must be seen as a great victory.
It’s probably best to leave the Geneva Convention out of your assertions. Many of the people – though not all by any means – in Gitmo are not protected by those rules of warfare.
In disturbing point of fact, the Geneva Convention’s prescribed measure for dealing with many of the people in Gitmo is summary execution – no trials, nada – just a bullet.
I often wonder what I would do if I knew that a terrorist had information that would save the life of your family “generic”. I know what I’d do if it was mine.
What if a person is sworn to defend the nations security as well as it’s citizens?
55% of our fellows approve of torturing terrorists.
Actually jonolan, the convention clearly states the exact opposite of your contention. If the people in Gitmo were to be summarily executed, those who did so would immediately be subject to prosecution.
That torture is even on the table for discussion is an incredible slide into tyranny. I feel badly for your previous democracy.
How do we as Americans make ammends for this unconstitutional and inhumane behavior? That the American people and Congress is so willing to sweep it under the rug and focus on putting a Democrat in the White House seems like a pretty weak response.
The Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) says: “Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
Further: (Article 17): “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”
Wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the Geneva Conventions.
The real issue raised by our Dear Leader and Junior Dear Leader in Washington is whether or not the folks incarcerated in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are POWs. As far as I know, there has been no competent tribunal to resolve that issue. I’m no lawyer (too much personal pride) but it seems clear that the Bushco efforts with regard to prisoners are in violation of the conventions.
As a career military officer, I was briefed often on the Geneva conventions and told that the conventions were my best protection against torture if I were taken as a POW. I don’t think John McCain and other Vietnam POWs found much interest among their captors in the Geneva conventions, but still, Bush’s actions may now be used to legitimize torture of American soldiers taken by any foreign agency.
jolonan, jolonan so little time and so much stupidity for you to spread on these tubes eh?
You must get your “facts” from faux noise right?
The funny thing is that while every prisoner of war was, at one point, an enemy combatant, enemy combatants are not, even when captured, prisoners of war.
This fine semantic distinction is what prevents them from being treated with the dignity accorded by the Geneva Conventions.
Good god, I already covered this – it went unanswered here.
Jon, actually the idea that you don’t see the VAST middle ground between shutting down Gitmo and not letting enemy combatants or POWs SUE in our courts is ridiculous. I refuse to believe you dont get it.
Also, just as a point of clarification – the quickest way to make sure we just kill our enemies and not capture them, is to let them have civilian trials back home. This is another form of the bacon-is-the-best-thing-that-ever-happened-to-the-pig argument.
Firstly, Article 4(2) clearly states who must be classed upon capture as a prisoner of war. Many – though as I said not all – of the detainees do explicitly do not meet these requirements.
Indeed, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that people operating in the manner of the terrorists are to be classed as spies and saboteurs and are explicitly DENIED protections under the conventions.
I’m NOT necessarily advocating the mistreatment of said individuals. I was merely pointing out that the using the Geneva Conventions as an argument against Gitmo wasn’t the best choice. While it would beneficially apply to some of the detainees, to others it would actually be a detriment.
But Morgan there’s no proof that most of the captives are actually THE enemy, let alone combatants.
Why have there been no trials or convictions. Because even though we control all the admissible evidence, we can’t prove their “guilt”.
In America, it used to be that the accused were innocent until proven guilty. I’m afraid that ended seven long years ago.
jonolan,
Just how did you determine that the men held in Guantanamo do not meet the criteria spelled out in the conventions? I have seen nothing but assertions of their status from the Bushies and Army. No evidence, no specification of charges against them, no nothing to prove or even support the case that they should not be treated as prisoners of war. In fact, a number of them have been released, after several years in prison, because there was, apparentl, no evidence against them of any crimes or terrorist acts at all. I have no affection or respect for terrorists, but I do have respect for the Constitution and laws. Obviously Bush does not. If I, or you, were being held in jail in the US under similar circumstances, I think we could agree that there might be real Constitutional issues to deal with. If we don’t deal honestly and legally with those issues now, it may well be that you or I find ourselves in a similar state in a future Bushist America.
Note that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly do not constitute competent authority to judge the status of POWs.
JR, my only issue is the use of OUR court system. Military tribunals? Great. But, some non-military judge having a say is nuts.
JR, my only issue is the use of OUR court system. Military tribunals? Great. But, some non-military judge having a say is nuts.
You’ve it on one of the problems occurring at Gitmo, Patrick. While I find it safe to assume that our military has classified their prisoners correctly – most of whom, either by failure to “show their colors” or through their actions disqualify themselves as POWs – I cannot hold such faith in the prisoners provided by 3rd-parties.
Therein lies my biggest problem with Gitmo. We’re taking people arrested by other governments in their own unsupervised sweeps and we’re taking prisoners based on 3rd party evidence provided by nationals with little reason for honesty.
This is why ALL my references to these detainees in this thread have included a caveat regarding the multiplicity of their nature.
You’ve it on one of the problems occurring at Gitmo, Patrick. While I find it safe to assume that our military has classified their prisoners correctly – most of whom, either by failure to “show their colors” or through their actions disqualify themselves as POWs – I cannot hold such faith in the prisoners provided by 3rd-parties.
Therein lies my biggest problem with Gitmo. We’re taking people arrested by other governments in their own unsupervised sweeps and we’re taking prisoners based on 3rd party evidence provided by nationals with little reason for honesty.
This is why ALL my references to these detainees in this thread have included a caveat regarding the multiplicity of their nature.
If these gentleman being housed at Gitmo are as the left wants to define them, non terrorist enemy combatants, when have we ever granted citizen status to pow’s?
Since when has the Military come under civilian court Jurisdiction. That’s what the Code of Military Justice is for.
Since when has the Congress and the Courts become CinC, talk about stretching the Constitution.
If they want to be responsible, the Congress, let them cut off funding. Then you will see how the American really people feel.
If these gentleman being housed at Gitmo are as the left wants to define them, non terrorist enemy combatants, when have we ever granted citizen status to pow’s?
Since when has the Military come under civilian court Jurisdiction. That’s what the Code of Military Justice is for.
Since when has the Congress and the Courts become CinC, talk about stretching the Constitution.
If they want to be responsible, the Congress, let them cut off funding. Then you will see how the American really people feel.
Sorry, jonolan, but I do not necessarily accept that the US military has classified their prisoners correctly. There has been far too much political pressure put on military leaders to subject somebody, almost anybody, to a tribunal, find them guilty, and execute them. The behavior of many military officers involved with prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib has clearly violated their oaths of office and standards of personal integrity demanded of military personnel.
All the above being said, I do agree that those who have been properly classified as not being prisoners of war should probably be classified as common criminals of a particularly vicious sort and dealt with appropriately. I think the British have done this with the IRA, for instance, and refused to classify any of their prisoners as POWs, thus denying them the honorable status of soldiers.
Sorry, jonolan, but I do not necessarily accept that the US military has classified their prisoners correctly. There has been far too much political pressure put on military leaders to subject somebody, almost anybody, to a tribunal, find them guilty, and execute them. The behavior of many military officers involved with prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib has clearly violated their oaths of office and standards of personal integrity demanded of military personnel.
All the above being said, I do agree that those who have been properly classified as not being prisoners of war should probably be classified as common criminals of a particularly vicious sort and dealt with appropriately. I think the British have done this with the IRA, for instance, and refused to classify any of their prisoners as POWs, thus denying them the honorable status of soldiers.
Sorry about the dyslexia.
Sorry about the dyslexia.
Cheney created a new classification of prisoner: “Enemy Combatant” to avoid being held to the Geneva Conventions and then, just to be sure, they opened the prison at Gitmo, in Cuba, so that they could argue they were not subject to the American judicial system.
Cheney created a new classification of prisoner: “Enemy Combatant” to avoid being held to the Geneva Conventions and then, just to be sure, they opened the prison at Gitmo, in Cuba, so that they could argue they were not subject to the American judicial system.
P.Cross,
I’m assuming that in your 1st sentence you’re referring to granting them the same Constitutional rights as US citizens. If so, then you’re wrong. The SCOTUS has ruled that that the bulk of the Constitution applies to non-citizens as well. That’s why Gitmo isn’t within US borders – as JR pointed out.
JR,
“Enemy Combatant” is as good a term as any. It’s a new face of war and will need new terms, and probably a new (5th?) Geneva Convention to address the new scope of the battlefield.
P.Cross,
I’m assuming that in your 1st sentence you’re referring to granting them the same Constitutional rights as US citizens. If so, then you’re wrong. The SCOTUS has ruled that that the bulk of the Constitution applies to non-citizens as well. That’s why Gitmo isn’t within US borders – as JR pointed out.
JR,
“Enemy Combatant” is as good a term as any. It’s a new face of war and will need new terms, and probably a new (5th?) Geneva Convention to address the new scope of the battlefield.
I’ve lost all patience with this issue.
People who want to throw away Constitutional protections of American citizens, as well as humanitarian guarantees of basic treatment of prisoners of any kind, in order to protect their own lives, are cowards and should be ignored.
If you’re that scared of a terrorist attack, build a bomb shelter and live in it 24/7 like Dick Cheney.
If you’re that committed to keeping America safe, and you’re not a coward, then join the military and demand that you be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, or else if you’re not eligible for the military, get one of the hundreds of thousands of “contractor” jobs.
But don’t sit here, safe in America, and talk about how we have to torture, and keep our prisoners in an eternal limbo between criminal and combatant, and try them only in military kangaroo courts, to keep Americans safe. You don’t deserve safety at that kind of a price. Nobody does.
There are worse things than dying in terrorist attacks. We used to understand that.
I’ve lost all patience with this issue.
People who want to throw away Constitutional protections of American citizens, as well as humanitarian guarantees of basic treatment of prisoners of any kind, in order to protect their own lives, are cowards and should be ignored.
If you’re that scared of a terrorist attack, build a bomb shelter and live in it 24/7 like Dick Cheney.
If you’re that committed to keeping America safe, and you’re not a coward, then join the military and demand that you be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, or else if you’re not eligible for the military, get one of the hundreds of thousands of “contractor” jobs.
But don’t sit here, safe in America, and talk about how we have to torture, and keep our prisoners in an eternal limbo between criminal and combatant, and try them only in military kangaroo courts, to keep Americans safe. You don’t deserve safety at that kind of a price. Nobody does.
There are worse things than dying in terrorist attacks. We used to understand that.
Dan
Nice rant – who was it aimed that though? I haven’t seen anyone here take the stance your ranting about.
Clif,
If you can’t do more than spew bile, go back to White Noise Insanity where you fit in.
Dan
Nice rant – who was it aimed that though? I haven’t seen anyone here take the stance your ranting about.
Clif,
If you can’t do more than spew bile, go back to White Noise Insanity where you fit in.
I’m with you, Dan!
For your information jonolan, non-US citizens in the US deserve, and receive, the same protections the Constitution provides, that citizens do.
And Cheney thinks that by calling them “enemy combatants” rather than POWs he’s fooling anyone?
I’m with you, Dan!
For your information jonolan, non-US citizens in the US deserve, and receive, the same protections the Constitution provides, that citizens do.
And Cheney thinks that by calling them “enemy combatants” rather than POWs he’s fooling anyone?
One important distinction raised in this discussion is that between citizen and non-citizen. There is a feeling on the right that we are too kind to our own citizens in the court system and that we simply “can’t afford” such overflowing generosity towards people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.
From the time of the American Revolution onwards there has been a philosophical tension regarding the degree of universality of our Declaration. Do we really mean all men? What about women? What about non-whites? Obviously people outside the circle of citizenship pose a more fundamental challenge — we don’t get to decide their status in most circumstances anyway.
The distinction between UCMJ vs civilian courts is a legitimate one and how due process is appropriately adapted to new circumstances is complex. But the present administration has shown a pronounced tendency to define human rights downward in a very indiscriminate way. From Rush Limbaugh and his echo chamber, I don’t particularly mind fulminations about scary “furriners” — though I think it’s cheap and ugly. I do however object to elected officials who are tone deaf on universal human rights and then hire lawyers like John Yoo and David Addington who seem quite prepared to serve as consigliere to Il Duce if it will advance their careers.
I don’t want an Article II dictatorship, whether Republican or Democratic. Bush and his crowd have zero credibility with me on human and civil rights because they have been astonishingly reckless. We can begin having a more open and serious conversation when the present executive branch of the Federal government has been cleared of Bush appointees. God willing, that will happen next January the 20th.
One important distinction raised in this discussion is that between citizen and non-citizen. There is a feeling on the right that we are too kind to our own citizens in the court system and that we simply “can’t afford” such overflowing generosity towards people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.
From the time of the American Revolution onwards there has been a philosophical tension regarding the degree of universality of our Declaration. Do we really mean all men? What about women? What about non-whites? Obviously people outside the circle of citizenship pose a more fundamental challenge — we don’t get to decide their status in most circumstances anyway.
The distinction between UCMJ vs civilian courts is a legitimate one and how due process is appropriately adapted to new circumstances is complex. But the present administration has shown a pronounced tendency to define human rights downward in a very indiscriminate way. From Rush Limbaugh and his echo chamber, I don’t particularly mind fulminations about scary “furriners” — though I think it’s cheap and ugly. I do however object to elected officials who are tone deaf on universal human rights and then hire lawyers like John Yoo and David Addington who seem quite prepared to serve as consigliere to Il Duce if it will advance their careers.
I don’t want an Article II dictatorship, whether Republican or Democratic. Bush and his crowd have zero credibility with me on human and civil rights because they have been astonishingly reckless. We can begin having a more open and serious conversation when the present executive branch of the Federal government has been cleared of Bush appointees. God willing, that will happen next January the 20th.
My rant was aimed at anyone who thinks his life, his own skin, his personal safety, is worth more than the human rights of others.
The “you” was rhetorical.
My rant was aimed at anyone who thinks his life, his own skin, his personal safety, is worth more than the human rights of others.
The “you” was rhetorical.
JR,
I don’t understand the remark you aimed at me. I pointed out to P.Cross that you were right and that the SCOTUS had ruled that the bulk of the Constitution’s rights apply to non-citizens as well as citizens.
JR,
I don’t understand the remark you aimed at me. I pointed out to P.Cross that you were right and that the SCOTUS had ruled that the bulk of the Constitution’s rights apply to non-citizens as well as citizens.
“There is a feeling on the right that we are too kind to our to our own citizens in the court system…”
Would agree that the US criminal system is currently dominated by “get tough on anything that scares you” STS. The truth of the US corrections system doesn’t allow much “kindness” except for whites who can afford attorneys to beat the rap. Ironic that the largest number of those who advocate for even tougher criminal prosecution come from that social strata with money.
It’s the same attitude that fuels the Iraq, and upcoming Iranian wars, from “shock and awe” to “Bring it on.” While partially motivated by oil contracts for Dick’s partners, these dicks believe that bullying is justified and power is the prize.
“There is a feeling on the right that we are too kind to our to our own citizens in the court system…”
Would agree that the US criminal system is currently dominated by “get tough on anything that scares you” STS. The truth of the US corrections system doesn’t allow much “kindness” except for whites who can afford attorneys to beat the rap. Ironic that the largest number of those who advocate for even tougher criminal prosecution come from that social strata with money.
It’s the same attitude that fuels the Iraq, and upcoming Iranian wars, from “shock and awe” to “Bring it on.” While partially motivated by oil contracts for Dick’s partners, these dicks believe that bullying is justified and power is the prize.
Well, nobody seems to be thinking about this (which surprises me), but I wouldn’t be so sure about restoring the rule of law, even if Obama wins. His reversal on FISA over the last week or so is breath-taking in how directly it contravenes the principles he’s been espousing in his campaign.
I still hope he wins; even with that, he’s still worlds better than McCain. But that’s a huge shot across the bow of those who, like me, thought it a given that he’d re-establish the rule of law.
Well, nobody seems to be thinking about this (which surprises me), but I wouldn’t be so sure about restoring the rule of law, even if Obama wins. His reversal on FISA over the last week or so is breath-taking in how directly it contravenes the principles he’s been espousing in his campaign.
I still hope he wins; even with that, he’s still worlds better than McCain. But that’s a huge shot across the bow of those who, like me, thought it a given that he’d re-establish the rule of law.
dc: The problem is that the middle period of politics is to win the center, or in McSame’s case his base back, and that’s when you see lots of backpeddling from pure positions.
Politics is vetted, polled, focused grouped, and scripted to such an extent, that if you want win, you have to do a lot of chameleon on a plaid pattern shifting. It’s very unsettling for the principled, but very much the way to win. Hope the base that brung ya’ doesn’t rebel too much when you start dancing with middle America, and say what you have to say.
I would remind you that Bush was the candidate of fiscal responsibility, a “uniter not a divider”, and for the common man. Despite throwing that off a cliff very early on, he still took a second term.
Once in, who knows what he will do, but it’s damn sure to be dependent on what sort of a congress he has, what the economics of the country will allow, and very pragmatic but, I think, not in the Old Politics Way.
dc: The problem is that the middle period of politics is to win the center, or in McSame’s case his base back, and that’s when you see lots of backpeddling from pure positions.
Politics is vetted, polled, focused grouped, and scripted to such an extent, that if you want win, you have to do a lot of chameleon on a plaid pattern shifting. It’s very unsettling for the principled, but very much the way to win. Hope the base that brung ya’ doesn’t rebel too much when you start dancing with middle America, and say what you have to say.
I would remind you that Bush was the candidate of fiscal responsibility, a “uniter not a divider”, and for the common man. Despite throwing that off a cliff very early on, he still took a second term.
Once in, who knows what he will do, but it’s damn sure to be dependent on what sort of a congress he has, what the economics of the country will allow, and very pragmatic but, I think, not in the Old Politics Way.
Every past government that has began using torture, tribunals outside the rule of law, secret prisons, illegal searches and detentions has always turned on it’s own people.
Go ahead and support it today, and you will be the victim tomorrow.
History does repeat itself.
Every past government that has began using torture, tribunals outside the rule of law, secret prisons, illegal searches and detentions has always turned on it’s own people.
Go ahead and support it today, and you will be the victim tomorrow.
History does repeat itself.
Marlin,
Every past – and every current – government in a position to feel the need to do so, has employed tribunals outside the rule of law, secret prisons, and illegal searches and detentions against foreign enemies. History does not claim that all have them have turned against their people.
Hyperbolic argument does not serve any purpose but to polarize contenders’ positions.
Marlin,
Every past – and every current – government in a position to feel the need to do so, has employed tribunals outside the rule of law, secret prisons, and illegal searches and detentions against foreign enemies. History does not claim that all have them have turned against their people.
Hyperbolic argument does not serve any purpose but to polarize contenders’ positions.
I LOVE YOU.
I LOVE YOU.
Ask the inquisition.
Ask the inquisition.