Acceptable torture...

[Viv]

Bush vetoes torture bill...the issue may have moved on since this article was printed, but is it a decent starter for discussion of issues surrounding the employment of torture:

What is this about? Is it acceptable to U.S. posters for their President to publicly support torture?

Or you think that is not what's happening?

Are water boarding and other such practices acceptable to the rest of us, or is torture never acceptable under any circumstance?

(The Politico) President Bush is about to hand Democrats major opportunity to again debate water boarding, torture and CIA interrogation methods.

On Saturday, Bush plans to announce that he has vetoed the annual intelligence authorization bill, which would require the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual rules on interrogations. Those Army rules prohibit torture of suspects _ most notably water boarding _ but U.S. intelligence agencies operate outside these military rules.

"The president will veto the intelligence authorization bill tomorrow," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters, according to wire services.

Democrats on Friday evening jumped on the announcement of the veto, saying it would essentially be an endorsement of torture of terrorist suspects. Several Democratic statements were embargoed for Saturday's expected announcement during President Bush's radio address.

Yet Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) released this statement:

"President Bush’s veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Kennedy said. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."

Democrats lack the authority to override the veto in both chambers, but the veto will undoubtedly give Democrats and Republicans yet another opportunity to debate whether torturing terrorist suspects is something the nation should endorse. Republicans say the CIA should not have to follow military field manual rules because terrorists are not lawful combatants.

Notably, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, voted with Republicans despite his stance against torture. McCain has said he has always been against torture but does not believe the Army Field Manual should be applied to the CIA.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3919295.shtml

[An Céachta Dearg]

Ha typical.

Is it any suprise the torture of suspects continues, maybe one day theyll actually cathc a proper terrorist rather than continue torturing innocents.

Close Guantanomo

[Don melQuiades]

What is this about? Is it acceptable to U.S. posters for their President to publicly support torture?


No. Never.

Unfortunately, our president has a general disregard for human rights that don't fit into his political agenda.

[Gareth]

doesn't sound too different from Alan Dershowitz advocation of torture for the Israelis against Palestinian suspects. You see how the ideas are shared sometimes.

[quirk]

I think it is a widely known fact that torture does not produce reliable intel as in the majority of cases a person who is being tortured will tell his torturers whatever they want to hear. I think that it is never acceptable.

[Gareth]

Das Leben der Anderen is a good film, at the start they show the kind of torture that was in Eastern Germany. Great start point for torture.

[Phædrus]

In some cases? Maybe. But as a general policy? No.

One of the key aspects of fascism is an overbearing obsession with national security.

[quirk]

In some cases? Maybe. But as a general policy? No.

One of the key aspects of fascism is an overbearing obsession with national security.

In what cases could you see it being acceptable?

[Viv]

I think it is a widely known fact that torture does not produce reliable intel as in the majority of cases a person who is being tortured will tell his torturers whatever they want to hear. I think that it is never acceptable.

Intel is part of a larger picture. Put together with other information and analysed for trends, if there is any truth it might be worth something... if other information adds to the puzzle?

You said it is a widely known fact...I am not sure of that. Just out of interest, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?...:p

[Phædrus]

In what cases could you see it being acceptable?

In the face of a clear and present danger to the country.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
- The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 9

In the event of an imminent terrorist attack, the President/Congress can declare the right to Habeas Corpus to be suspended for suspected terrorists.

Of course, in the event that Congress or the President abuses this power to create a dictatorship or to secure greater personal wealth or power, things could get ugly fast. That's why we have a second amendment that grants us the right to keep and bear arms; to prevent the government from taking advantage of the citizenry (as well as self-defense).

[Mono Tejano]

Define torture.

What we see here in the US on shows like '24' all too often is clearly torture, but for some, actually for many, simply being agressively interrogated can be considered torture.

What is it? is it worthwhile?

I agree with Phae. Sometimes it is justifiable. But most of the time it's useless since the person being 'tortures' will only tell you what they think you want to hear.

the best quote I know on this vien comes from "Reservoir Dogs':

(I'm Paraphrasing) "beat him all day and he'll tell you he started the f-ing Chicago fire. But that don't necessarilly make it so."

[Viv]

Totally agree, Mono. Torture in any form is unacceptable to me.

I am teasing Quirk by asking for evidence...someone has to balance the debate and most of us seem to agree on this.

It would inform the debate though if he produced some... I have seen this discussed many times and heard people assert this or that as truth, but rarely have I seen any evidence or any study detailing evidence which confirms that torture does not work.

There was one convincing person (I think Palerider) who told me waterboarding, for example, is not normally going to kill and the victim is aware of that, but that practice triggers an instinct...can't recall the technical name, in layman's terms I will try to express it... an inbuilt survival reflex which takes over the person and forces them to react. It is effective in this way, according to him.

I will research this later and try to present something more accurately descriptive.

[donquixote99]

Is it acceptable to U.S. posters for their President to publicly support torture?

Or you think that is not what's happening?

Are water boarding and other such practices acceptable to the rest of us, or is torture never acceptable under any circumstance?

Is torture acceptable? No, and Bush remains a disgrace.

It may be the AFM regulations are not quite right for the CIA. I'd have to read then, and I haven't. But all in all, I'm for setting the bar high, since the security types are going to push it anyway.

In the unlikely event that you have someone who knows where the ticking nuke is, you can issue pardons later.

McCain is hanging with the Rs on this. He's at a point where he needs his party and can't be a maverick so much.

[Enver]

Torture is never acceptable.

[Chookie]

Torture is never acceptable.

....and in the majority of cases, totally counter productive.

On the other hand, the torturers may get off on torturing.

[politicallymoderate]

torture is NEVER acceptable.

[BFSmith@764]

Bush vetoes torture bill...the issue may have moved on since this article was printed, but is it a decent starter for discussion of issues surrounding the employment of torture:

What is this about? Is it acceptable to U.S. posters for their President to publicly support torture?

Or you think that is not what's happening?

Are water boarding and other such practices acceptable to the rest of us, or is torture never acceptable under any circumstance?


The fact that one is asked to discuss if torturer, boarding in this case, is ok says how much people's sense of what is right has been degraded. Next, people will be debating if it’s ok to murder civilians.... oh; I just remember they are now doing that too.

[Viv]

The fact that one is asked to discuss if torturer, boarding in this case, is ok says how much people's sense of what is right has been degraded. Next, people will be debating if it’s ok to murder civilians.... oh; I just remember they are now doing that too.

Actually...this is possibly the most shocking comment I have heard in this debate.

You are completely right.

We have come to accept what is fundamentally barbaric as normal. People should be demanding that this is not done, it is blatantly wrong...how far have we moved from decency when we can even consider this as acceptable?

[BFSmith@764]

Actually...this is possibly the most shocking comment I have heard in this debate.

You are completely right.

We have come to accept what is fundamentally barbaric as normal. People should be demanding that this is not done, it is blatantly wrong...how far have we moved from decency when we can even consider this as acceptable?


Yes it is shocking, but from my stand point I'm not surprised, because human beings as a whole do not really know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Basically our sense of what is right and wrong comes from what is acceptable or popular in society, and what is acceptable in society often times comes from those whom people look up to.....Hollywood, the media, Politian, our peers and friends for example.

Also, people in high office often know how to manipulate others with clever sounding words, like "Homeland security" "fighting terrorist" "If you are with us you are with the terrorist." People are driven by their emotions and so are easily lead to wherever the speaking wants to lead them to.


Another example, there was a time when what this government is doing would be considered undemocratic, spying on it's citizens, the President going to war with out authorization to congress, declaring peaceful protesters as terrorist. All of the above and much more are now being done by this present administration, and mark my words it is only going to get worse.

[donquixote99]

People are driven by their emotions and so are easily lead to wherever the speaking wants to lead them to.



Yes! Yes!


(Oh by the way, would you mind terribly selecting a larger size for your text? Having to squint to read your things is a tad annoying....)

[Viv]

Yes it is shocking, but from my stand point I'm not surprised, because human beings as a whole do not really know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Basically our sense of what is right and wrong comes from what is acceptable or popular in society, and what is acceptable in society often times comes from those whom people look up to.....Hollywood, the media, Politian, our peers and friends for example.

Also, people in high office often know how to manipulate others with clever sounding words, like "Homeland security" "fighting terrorist" "If you are with us you are with the terrorist." People are driven by their emotions and so are easily lead to wherever the speaking wants to lead them to.


Another example, there was a time when what this government is doing would be considered undemocratic, spying on it's citizens, the President going to war with out authorization to congress, declaring peaceful protesters as terrorist. All of the above and much more are now being done by this present administration, and mark my words it is only going to get worse.

I think that many regard these things undemocratic, but as you point out the situation arose from the emotion of 9/11 and has simply become out of hand.

What is the perspective on the forthcoming change of U.S. government, i.e. do the candidates' stated policies indicate the possibility of a change regarding these issues?

[flax]

Ethicly torture is wrong on so many levels.

You can allways constuct a senario where torture is justified even if you have to stretch it quite a bit.

But as a general principle NO and in legislature NEVER.
Just as the cop puting the burning carcrash victim out of his missey shouldnt
be charged with murder.