[Reuters] Report: Bush Gave CIA Expansive Interrogation Power

Here is something for NJ, or others who think that after 9/11 most of the nation would be ok with torturing terrorists.

This doesn't even account for the fact that innocents are also being tortured.

http://shininglight.us/mt/archives/2005/01/us_citizens_att.html

The poll is from USA today. It even mentions specific torture techniques, and the polls still show that the U.S. as nation is against things like threatening to send detainees to countries known to use torture.

 

please show me where i wrote that

 

you dont have a clue what you are talking about

 

If you say so...

I find it interesting that you believe most of the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 tragedy aren't happy that the victims died with their principles in tact being citizens of a nation that still held the moral highground.

I tend to think more of the families of the victims than that, but we are each entitled to our opinion.

 

you compared the loss of our morality in torturing people on terror watch lists to the loss of life.....if you think that the victims' families of 9-11 think that the lost morality is "FAR WORSE" (your words) than the loss of life, I can guarantee they would disagree

 

Some of them, but not all of them.....

http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/

 

Go to these people's homes during the holidays....when they are missing thei loved ones the most...or perhaps on the birthdays of the 9-11 heros...or wedding anniversaries that aren't celebrated anymore...and you ask them if they would have approved of this torture if it could have stopped those planes....and I would almost guarantee...to a person, they would all approve.

 

In response to the Arab man who was picked up, sent to Syria, tortured, and sent back without being charged, you said something along the lines of how he can bite your ballbag. You have said previously how it's okay to torture people because not all of them are innocent. You talk about turning the Middle East into one big parking lot. Judging by these statements, I can assume that you do not care about due process when it comes to Arabs and Muslims. Judging by your statements, you assume that Arabs are guilty until proven innocent and you are not willing to give Arabs and Muslims common protections of the law in determining guilt. I will grant you that I might be wrong in my assessment of what you believe. If I am, then I apologize. Hopefully you will grant that judging by your pattern of statements, my assessment of what you advocate and believe is very rational.

 

he was obviously a suspect of terrorism.....if you are asking me if i trust the gov't enough to not pick up random people off the streets, the answer is yes....so, therefore, he can bite anything he wants.

 

A dictatorship has no legitimacy and hence no right to self defense. In addition, rarely, if ever, does a dictatorship use torture to protect innocents - rather to further their own security.

Reversing your analogy shows its absurdity: the Allies killed people in WWII for self preservation. The Nazis killed people post - pick a point in the war, say DDay - for self preservation. The Allies and the Nazis are the same? Uh, no.

 

Actually in a sense they are the same. The soldiers who fought for the Germans on D-Day, and the soldiers that fought for the allies on D-Day both killed. Neither was guilty of war crimes, because they were in a war and doing their duty.

So yes in that instance the Nazis and the Americans were the same. Each soldier fought for self preservation. Your reversal of my analogy still holds true. Killing in a war of soldiers is equal. The Nazis and Americans both did that, and they are equal in that regard. What makes them different is military aggression, and genocide. In a war either side can kill enemy soldiers on the battle

A dictatorship uses torture to protect it's soldiers, loyal citizens, and government leaders. A dictatorship may have a certain amoung of legitmacy under the UN charter signed by the U.S. if it is a sovereign nation. That form of govt. may be horrendous, but it can still legitimate.

 

so we should do nothing?

 

We should absolutely do something. We should support any home grown resistence, encourage isolation by cooperating with allies, and the UN. Depending on how aggressive that dictator is, we may want to support other nations currently involved in conflict with that dictator. Give as much humanitarian aid as possible to the people who live and suffer under the dictator, in order to give them a taste of what could be happen, and establish ourselves as acting in their interests.

Depending on the threat to the citizens, and neighbors we may want to establish no fly zones, trade embargos, blockades, and things of this nature as well. If the dictator attacks us or our allies we respond with overwhelming force.

We should never use torture.

 

Agreed.

The conversation had started to drift to a US -> bad; other's OK, in my opinion. While I strongly agree that the US is offside here, I'm not willing to condone (or even accept legitimacy to) the deplorable actions of rogue nations -- even if it's *just* their own people they're messing with...

I'm with you on the torture thing.

Deck's post summed it up best. Quite apart from the whole morality of torture, it's not a hypothetical 'if you knew he would blow up times square...it's a real-life 'what if your information is wrong.' Checks and balances. Even in difficult times. Sometimes acknowledging and addressing weaknesses is what makes a nation stronger. Its best patriots should be insisting on that.

 

So I suppose the House of Saud and the the Pakistani regime have no right to defend themselves against Islamist rebels?

For that matter why are we sending prisoners to be tortured in dictatorships like Syria and Pakistan?

 

I am absolutely against torture, without exceptions.

However, situations where you have a known terrorist that holds critical information about planned mass murders most definitely present a dilemma, as the absolute prohibition of torture collides with the desire to save many innocent lives.

I guess it depends on your definition of torture in that case. Let me just say that I do not advocate using velvet gloves in a case like that. A certain degree of psychological pressure and possibly even physical force - but I am very hesitant and unsure with regards to that - must be considered in an extreme situation like that.

There was a very big case in the German media where some sicko had kidnapped a 9 year old boy. The police caught the suspect, but the suspect would not tell them where the boy was. The police believed the boy was still alive, but might be trapped in a cage and starving to death. The officer that was heading the investigation threatened to use physical force to make the suspect tell them where the boy was.

Later, it turned out that the boy had already been killed at the beginning of the abduction by the suspect - who kept lying to the police. Under the threat of physical pressure (which was never exerted against him), he told them where to find the boy (who was already dead). Otherwise, he would possibly never have said anything.

In the end, the police officer got indicted and sentenced because the court deemed it a "torture threat".

I thought that was ridiculous. The threat of physical force was not made to force a confession, but to save a human life.

If you clearly have a clear and present danger situation to a human life, I do not see how you can grant the psychological - and possibly physical - health of the perpetrator a higher protection than that of the victim.

 

Bush is also trying to justify torture (by detaining and removing due process and councel) to use on American citizens. He's fighting the Supreme Court on it as we speak.

I'm constantly reminded of the Illinois debacle where innocent inmates were sentenced the Death Penalty from perjured testimony given by detectives, 2nd hand testimony from bribed inmates, unscientific witness experts, and/or coerced un-Constitutional confessions.

We're such a great moral authority for other countries to look up to. We can base our proud commitment towards human rights by outsourcing the dirty work and receiving a polished product in return. The only trade off is maintaining the dictatorships and evil we're supposedly against. But our people can't remember 20 years into the past. The nut and shell game of delivering and taking away democracy has never been better.

 

Don't worry about that hypothetical. It isn't really even possible. First of all it assumes that the information is 100% correct about the terrorist event, and how monumental the damage would be. It also assumes that the inteligence has found the correct person who knows the details. It also assumes that only that person knows person knows the details. It also assumes there is no other way to stop the catophry(find the bomb etc.) It also assumes that torture will provide reliable information and not a lie from the captured terrorist...

This list goes on and on. There is fact a great exampe of the fallacies supposed in this type of hypothetical. It can be read here: www.aals.org/am2005/saturdaypapers/1030scheppele.pdf

That hypothetical is something for an ethics class and nearly impossible to occur in the real world.