Ok, so we know where we stand, that's a good start. Do you think that torture really was effective in saving lives ?

Also, would you apply the same standards to America's enemies ? Was it justifiable for the Viet Cong to torture captured American soldiers like John McCain on the grounds that it might have generated intelligence which would save the lives of Vietnamese soldiers/civilians ?

freeman3 wrote:We don't need to blame the CIA or Bush or Cheney or anyone for that matter--we can say just it was an understandable overreaction to 9-11. The question is whether as a society we are so scared of potential threats that we are prepared to go beyond civilized behavior to stop them? It's kind of a slippery slope when you go down this path...because if currently allowed methods are not effective why not use even harsher measures that are more likely to be effective?

And, that's a fine "conversation" to have. However, looking back now and saying what should/should not have been done in a vacuum and pretending everyone knew there would be no further attacks is rubbish. If we want to have a hard and fast "we don't torture" law, that's fine. Pass it. Of course, if Obama wants to violate that, he can under "executive authority." He can do whatever he wants, but I digress.

I guess like Sass suggested if there was a situation where there was (for example) a nuclear bomb in a US city and a suspect knew about it torture might be justified if the president signed off on it...most people would probably support it on such a limited circumstance.

I can think of any number of scenarios where if I was President I would do it and face the consequences. As POTUS, my job is to protect Americans. If that means I have to waterboard some terrorist to get info that I am convinced will save lives, I will. End of story. Anyone who would not, including John McCain, should not be President.

At the very least the head of the CIA (or may be even the president) should have signed off on each and every one of the cases where torture was used.

I think Cheney said Bush did sign off on them. I don't buy the "CIA went rogue" meme.

If the intel is so vital, so necessary to national security...then any enhanced interrogation should be authorized by those at the very top. I just think that except in extraordinary circumstances that will probably never happen this is a problematic road to go down at all.

I agree with these caveats:

1. In the wake of 9/11, some kind of over the top response was inevitable.

2. No matter what the report claims, we found UBL as a result of extreme measures.

Sassenach wrote:Ok, so we know where we stand, that's a good start. Do you think that torture really was effective in saving lives ?

That is the testimony of every head of the CIA under Bush and Obama, including the current one. Well, it would be "testimony" if Feinstein could have bothered to talk to them.

Also, would you apply the same standards to America's enemies ? Was it justifiable for the Viet Cong to torture captured American soldiers like John McCain on the grounds that it might have generated intelligence which would save the lives of Vietnamese soldiers/civilians ?

You make it sound like the US just willy-nilly waterboarded people.

McCain was tortured for no reason other than the Viet Cong were sick (expletives).

Anyone who would not, including John McCain, should not be President.

I'll remind you of this in the event that Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination...

Sassenach wrote:

Anyone who would not, including John McCain, should not be President.

I'll remind you of this in the event that Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination...

I'll say it now--anyone who would not do it, should not be President.

I'm no fan of the Libertarian foreign policy. I think Paul is much closer to Obama on FP than he'd care to admit. I'm no neo-con, but if the US withdraws from the world stage to the extent Paul's father suggested, we will see regional wars like we've not seen in decades. Sure, we do have them now, but they will only increase when tyrants and wannabes know we won't get involved.

Sass,

Yes, Yes and Yes.

fate

. Anyone who would not, including John McCain, should not be President

That would have included the man who put his signature to the UN Convention on torture in 1988.
Ron Reagan
He signed the US on, even though it didn't contain an out fr "extreme circumstance"..


Part I (Articles 1–16) defines torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offense (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offense (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 and 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).

Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).

Part II (Articles 17–24) governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Articles 21) and allows parties to recognize the competence of the Committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention by a party (Article 22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... st_Torture

rickyp wrote:fate

. Anyone who would not, including John McCain, should not be President

That would have included the man who put his signature to the UN Convention on torture in 1988.
Ron Reagan
He signed the US on, even though it didn't contain an out fr "extreme circumstance"..


Part I (Articles 1–16) defines torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offense (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offense (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 and 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).

Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).

Part II (Articles 17–24) governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Articles 21) and allows parties to recognize the competence of the Committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention by a party (Article 22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... st_Torture

Anachronism. Look it up.

bbauska wrote:Sass,

Yes, Yes and Yes.

What evidence do you have that torture has saved American lives?

Doctor Fate wrote:Anachronism. Look it up.

You think terrorism is something that didn't happen until after the 1980s?

Or that human rights and constraints on government that Reagan thought acceptable are in reality just passing fads?

Tell me, what is the Constitutional position on the use of torture by the Federal government?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Anachronism. Look it up.

You think terrorism is something that didn't happen until after the 1980s?

No . . . I think 9/11 happened after the 1980's. There is no attack on America that can compare. Yes, Pearl Harbor was bad, but it was on a military base, it was not on TV, and we did not have to watch civilians willingly jumping to their deaths rather than being burned alive.

So, it's anachronistic to suppose that one can know what Reagan would do.

fate

So, it's anachronistic to suppose that one can know what Reagan would do

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

By word, his message to the Senate is linked above. And his actions. We do.

9/11 may have been a horrible event, but it did not represent the threat that Communism presented. Reagan was engaged as President in the last decade of the stand off against Communism. He was prepared to forgo the use of torture to discover "intelligence" in the Cold War. And Reagan went through the Red Scare, when the US lost its collective mind with McCarthyism...

Ad yet he stood against torture. So, yeah. we know.

This is part of the convention he championed and signed Fate... Its clear. Unless you think Reagan was a diabolical liar..

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Anachronism. Look it up.

You think terrorism is something that didn't happen until after the 1980s?

No . . . I think 9/11 happened after the 1980's. There is no attack on America that can compare. Yes, Pearl Harbor was bad, but it was on a military base, it was not on TV, and we did not have to watch civilians willingly jumping to their deaths rather than being burned alive.

Civilians did die at Pearl Harbor. And certainly did on other wartime atrocities (The Lusitania sinking during WWI being perhaps more apposite).

Basically, you are evaluating the emotional effect of it being televised rather than being objective. It is understandable that emotions run high after events like 9/11, but that does not justify the effective suspension of human rights.

Here is the real reason it is a big mistake during the "War on Terror": by sinking to a level where we use torture, we legitimise it. We not only give people a greater reason to oppose us, but we also by example (and especially when coming up with rationalisations for it) enable our enemies, allies and othere to try to justify the use of torture on our citizens.

So, it's anachronistic to suppose that one can know what Reagan would do.

I don't think that is the point at all. We know what Reagan did do. And what Congress later did when it was ratified.The US should repeal its ratification if it wants to legalise the use of torture. Until then, it is acting against its own legislative commitments.

If you want to argue Reagan would change his mind, ignore US law, Constitution and values, then fair enough. I'll not believe you without evidence.

danivon wrote:If you want to argue Reagan would change his mind, ignore US law, Constitution and values, then fair enough. I'll not believe you without evidence.

Meh.

If you and rickyp, in a rare moment of Reagan-love, want to say he wouldn't permit EIT's (nee "torture"), you are welcome to your opinion.

I'll stand by mine: no one can know. He didn't have that experience. He didn't have to concern himself with follow up attacks by Al Qaida.

Speculate all you want. That's all it is.

Danivon,

If I were to post anything, you would disagree with it. Why bother?

Not worth either of our electronic energies...