posted
Of all the horrible things in the news, this has got to be the most outragous, horrible, and scary thing. We are shipping people out of the US so we can torture them!
posted
Sure - that way we can claim to still "not torture prisoners for information" and still...well...receive the benefits of enthusiastic interrogation.
posted
But if this is happening we need to do something. We need to be up in arms...writing to Congress/President...in rallies or something.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't seem to be doing it intentionally, but one thing the new rule allowing the CIA to do it without specific Presidential approval has done is move pretty much all the documentation to be internal to the CIA.
IOW, there's almost a huge lack of oversight, even by the executive, and if it became necessary for, say, Congress to investigate an alleged abuse it would be nearly impossible with an unwilling executive.
When the President had to approve instances, that generated executive branch documentation which could theoretically be obtained by congress in addition to CIA documentation, which would likely be suspect in the case of an investigation anyways.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
W's dad said he wanted to be known as the Education President. I think W is going to be remembered as the Torture President.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you insinuating, Pix, that we are not shipping people out of the country to locations where they are then tortured and interrogated at length?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is supposed to be top secret, but ABC News found plenty of people who said they knew the true purpose of the airplane hangars at the end of a private two-lane road in rural North Carolina.
Why in the world would you believe an article that has that as it's opening point!
President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country. I see nothing wrong with that if thats the case here.
posted
The great thing about this particular issue is that it does not rely on this article for corroboration. A quick Google turns up quite a few more likely-sounding sources.
"President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country."
Yep. Bush is using it to send people suspected of terrorism -- applying criteria, mind you, to which the public is not privy -- back to their home country to be tortured. You cool with that?
posted
Actually, these are terrorists suspects, many of them are being released uncharged, several after being tortured.
Not terrorists.
Furthermore, the big problem isn't that they are being sent overseas, its that they are being sent overseas by the CIA without specific oversight by the executive branch.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, I can pick you up, torture you until I'm satisfied that you're not a terrorist and then turn you loose?
All because you're (insert skin tone or country of origin here)?
The problem is, there's no proof to back this up besides the 'very' sketchy article that started the thread.
And yes, if we believe that a person has information pertaining to another attack within the US and that person is not talking about it, they should be 'coaxed' into telling us. On the other hand I don't think anyone should torture a person in a way that disables them in any way.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are all sorts of mental torture you can invoke on a person. Just ask any random woman you see. Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
For the record, yo're not advocating "coaxing." You're advocating physical torture, water-boarding, psychological means to terrify, and incarceration without access to defense or basic prisoner rights. Or, for that matter, actually being charged with a crime.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen with a wife and two young children, had his life flipped upside down in the fall of 2002 when John Ashcroft's Justice Department, acting at least in part on bad information supplied by the Canadian government, decided it would be a good idea to abduct Mr. Arar and ship him off to Syria, an outlaw nation that the Justice Department honchos well knew was addicted to torture.
Mr. Arar was not charged with anything, and yet he was deprived not only of his liberty, but of all legal and human rights. He was handed over in shackles to the Syrian government and, to no one's surprise, promptly brutalized. A year later he emerged, and still no charges were lodged against him. His torturers said they were unable to elicit any link between Mr. Arar and terrorism. He was sent back to Canada to face the torment of a life in ruins.
Mr. Arar's is the case we know about. How many other individuals have disappeared at the hands of the Bush administration? How many have been sent, like the victims of a lynch mob, to overseas torture centers? How many people are being held in the C.I.A.'s highly secret offshore prisons? Who are they and how are they being treated? Have any been wrongly accused? If so, what recourse do they have?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has there been any recorded instances of terrorist attacks being thwarted by what we've learned through these methods? Any?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what's the ratio? How many innocent people can be disappeared to make up for one guilty one that gets nabbed?
Is it worth living in a country where the leaders can make you disappear if they don't like you, can hold forever without charging you or allowing you legal defense, can send you to a country and look the other way while you get tortured there?
Aren't we supposed to fight countries like that?
In the new United States, the ends justify the means, always. Better get used to it, people. Sign your loyalty oaths and stop ordering questionable books from Amazon, it'll come back to get you some day.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we can take the intensity down a bit, I'd be more than happy to go point-by-point. And, hopefully, I'll be able to support my feelings.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really upset at you, but I am upset at the situation (although "go ask your ex" would have been funnier and more evenhanded, women are hardly the only masters of mental cruelty )
I want to live in a country I can be proud of. I thought that was, you know, the point of the United States, what separated us from the dictatorships. I understand grey areas and expediency, but there's gotta be a line somewhere.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I'm going to have to stop here - mental "torture" can be just as crippling if not moreso than any physical affliction.
Ask anyone with a phobia, mental disorder or similar impediment.
I am of the opinion that neither Scott nor Jay really understand the implications of what they're advocating.
As for stopping another 9-11...had the freaking law enforcement agencies done their freaking jobs and not played turf war, it would have been stopped.
And who, the hell, blithely waves off someone paying a flight school (in cash, mind) with the stated intent of only wanting to learn how to take off, not land.
Imagine this - someone only wants to know to take off and not land? What's wrong with this picture?
I can see wanting to learn how to land a plane for those moments of crisis, but alarm bells should have been ringing from here to whatever incompetent genetic mistake at the FBI ignored the flight school's concerns. </rant>
posted
If you have a person who is willing to die for what he believes, how else but mental anguish, will you get information from him?
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point. So, we know there must be a point where the "torture" is too much and the information is bad. I agree.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall studies that called into question the validity of any information gained under extreme duress, although I cannot quote sources so take that for what it's worth.
As for "willing to die for their cause making them immune to the impact of physical torture" - not true. Dying quickly doesn't hurt much.
However, dying slowly...by inches...that's another matter entirely.
Not that I think it would be particularly beneficial to employ such techniques, but death by slow torture is a far cry from being blown up in a car bomb.
posted
Torture could be defined as so many things. I could say that waiting until the end of the work day is torture and so, the military is torturing me right now. Torture is a broad word that is used in many contexts. So, when I say "torture" I mean whatever you think is torture.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, note that the incentives which lead people to commit suicide bombings depend on the success of that suicide bombing; in other situations, they'll tend to react much as most other people. There've been a number of studies on the subject, and the general result is that these people are acting rationally, given their beliefs. It is not wacko fanatics who commit suicide bombings, it is anyone normal people who feel extremely marginalized by the system.
Not to mention that most terrorists by far are not suicide bombers willing to die for their causes. Even of 9/11 hijackers, most did not know their true purpose (as far as we've been able to determine).
quote:President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country. I see nothing wrong with that if thats the case here.
I think the idea is that we ship them over and let THEM torture our prisoners while our CIA people wait down the hall to hear what they spill. This is just as bad as if we do it on our own soil. And that's what they are trying to do.. that we didn't torture people on American soil... thus we didn't torture them.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle 1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Now, in legal terms, I would imagine we'd have to be more specific because as you noted, the word is bandied about rather lightly.
Saying you were being tortured by the long hours doesn't carry the same information as having your fingernails torn off or...well...your imagination can wander.
Q Why has the President approved of and expanded the practice of rendition, of the transfer of individuals from CIA custody to third countries for the purposes of interrogation?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Terry, we're talking about the war on terrorism. And this is a different kind of war. What took place on September 11th changed the world that we live in; it changed the equation, when it came to addressing the threats of the 21st century that we face. We have an obligation to the American people to gather intelligence that will help prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
There are people that want to do harm to America. We're talking about enemy combatants who are terrorists that have been involved in plotting and planning to attack the American people. And if they have information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place, we have an obligation to learn more about what they know. That will help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
But the President has made it very clear that when it comes to the question of torture, that we do not torture, we do not condone torture, he would never authorize the use of torture. We have laws and treaty obligations that we abide by and adhere to. This is -- the United States is a nation of laws. We also have an obligation not to render people to countries if we believe they would be tortured.
And so Judge Gonzales, during his testimony, provided information, talking about how we get assurances from countries to make sure that they abide by our values when it comes to the question of torture. But this is a different kind of war, and it requires us to gather intelligence in order to protect the American people.
Q Well, one of the countries that receives a lot of these individuals is Uzbekistan. What is it that the Uzbekis can do in interrogations that the United States of America can't do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, if you're asking me to talk about specific intelligence matters, you know that I'm not going to do that. But --
Q In general --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our understanding --
Q -- what is it that this country, the most advanced in national security matters of any country in the world, cannot accomplish in interrogations --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again --
Q -- that the nation of Uzbekistan can?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into specific matters, and I'm not going to do that --
Q Generally, in general --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of the classified nature of our intelligence. But it is important that we gather intelligence to protect the American people. We are working closely in partnership with many countries to win the war on terrorism and to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. The President will talk about some of those efforts that are being undertaken by countries around the world to win the war on terrorism tomorrow. And he looks forward to doing that.
But in terms of the whole question of renditions, I think our views are very clear in terms of --
Q But I'm wondering about the rationale for rendition. Why does the President approve of it? Why has he expanded it? And what is it that countries like Uzbekistan, in general, offer the U.S.?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, in terms of the whole issue of renditions, that's relating to classified intelligence matters, which I'm not going to --
Q You can't even tell me in general why this practice occurs?
MR. McCLELLAN: Which I'm not going to get into. No, I just told you in general that we have an obligation to the American people to gather intelligence that will help prevent attacks from happening in the first place. The war on terrorism is a different kind of war. And we have sworn enemies of the United States who continue to seek to do us harm. And we are talking about enemy combatants, known terrorists, who have been involved in plotting and planning to attack the American people in the past, and who might have information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the future.
Now, as we go about gathering intelligence, we have values and laws that we believe are important, that we believe need to be adhered to. And that is our commitment. The President has made it very clear to our government that we must abide by our laws and treaty obligations. And he's made it very clear that we do not torture.
-------------------------------
The main question -- what can these countries do that we can't? -- is not and will not be answered, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's contrary to American ideals of justice.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Am I getting revenge or searching for information?
If I knew he was a lead hijacker, I would be inhumane in his treatment, but I would also take great effort to ensure his personal safety - even from himself so I could tap his information.
posted
Why even bother calling ourselves the land of the free and brave? If we say it's ok to torture then we're neither of those things and we'll have lost the "mandate of heaven"/moral highground. We really will be an evil empire then, and probably worth taking down. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the notion of having a moral high ground or a "mandate from heaven" - but I am also supremely tired of trying to play big brother to an unruly schoolyard.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
A quick Google turns up quite a few more likely-sounding sources.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
