"The White House did not detail what types of interrogation procedures would be allowed. But it did offer parameters, saying any conditions of confinement and interrogation practices could not include:
"-Torture or other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation and cruel or inhuman treatment.
"-Willful or outrageous acts of personal abuse done to humiliate or degrade someone in a way so serious that any reasonable person would "deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation.
"-Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of an individual.
"The order also says that detainees must receive basic necessities, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extreme heat and cold and essential medical care. It says whatever interrogation practices used must be determined safe on an individual basis. To ensure the professional operation and safety of the program, it directs the CIA director to issue written policies to govern the program, including guidelines for CIA personnel."
Thoughts? Comments?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He's concerned about his legacy. He doesn't want it to be Abu Ghraib and Alberto González saying he's allowed to torture people.
I'm glad to see it, but it took too long.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Now, just to be clear, Cheney can still fly over to Iraq and torture prisoners, because he's not subject to this order, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agree with Icarus. It's a face saving gesture that comes too little too late.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This isn't actually anything new, it's the result of months of wrangling over agreed-upon standards. I haven't read it yet, but I'd be astounded if it actually limited much of what's already happening.
Still, had he signed even this much 4 years ago his legacy -- and the world's opinion of the US -- would have been very different.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'm glad to see it, but it took too long.
Ditto. This should have been a no-brainer.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I agree that this order is a no-brainer and took way too long to come about.
I noticed that conspicuously absent (from the news link description) is any sort of statement about not turning people over to other countries for questioning (who could use the very methods prohibited)....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it's good to have these things clarified, to be sure. The lateness might not be all Bush's fault, it's not as though anyone outside the White House likes the man these days.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
How does that excuse the lateness?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Kinko's put his order at the bottom of the stack.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: How does that excuse the lateness?
Disagreements about what was to go in the order. Wrangling, in a word. Things get delayed if you have difficulty getting consensus on what they should be.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But this is an executive order . . . is there a lack of consensus within the executive branch?
I'm not seeing it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dubya probably doesn't feel the need to torture folks to find out the secrets now that he's pirated a copy of Deathly Hallows
So can someone tell why anybody would need lighters on an airplane?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:The BBC:
US President George W Bush has signed an executive order banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of terror suspects.
It says torture and personal abuse - including sexual acts and attacks on religious beliefs - are intolerable.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said the order gave the agency the legal clarity it had been seeking.
Prior to this, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden was unsure whether cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was appropriate or not. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: But this is an executive order . . . is there a lack of consensus within the executive branch?
I'm not seeing it.
I'm not completely clear on the internal workings of the US government, but wouldn't Bush at least consult with his Republican allies in the Congress and Senate, to see what they thought? Even though the executive isn't responsible to Congress, there is presumably some minimal level of consensus-building.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I see it as a mostly empty, monstrously tardy gesture designed to save face for Bush's legacy.
At the same time, when Bush finally goes ahead and admits that this stuff is, how you say, 'wrong,' it cuts the rug out from under all the apologists who wanted to call anti-torture folk whiny terrorist coddlers for attempting to maintain a level of mandatory humanitarian dignity.
Aww, we were right all along. Torture is bad!
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
Sam, all torture is not "le torture" of the Algiers dispute. Far too many people are invoking the spirit of that great debate without knowing any of the context. Even back then, many of the whiny liberal French weenies admitted that torture was a legitimizing (and therefore necessary) part of guerilla warfare.
Torture makes the insurgent a real soldier. People who have no frame of reference on COIN should not even be posting in this thread or any other that has to do with COIN.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
With my views on the current state of political affairs, all I see this as is a face saving gesture that creates a hurdle waiting for a loophole to be exploited at one's conveinance.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Given the timing, I can't help but wonder if this is meant to distract people from the executive order that was issued on the 17th concerning property seizure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Even back then, many of the whiny liberal French weenies admitted that torture was a legitimizing (and therefore necessary) part of guerilla warfare.
'Legitimizing'? I do not see any way in which that word makes sense as you use it here. Please explain.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Probably correct, Samprimary, but given how little concern this administration has shown for the ideals or ideas of anyone outside a very small inner circle in the past, I'm inclined to think of even late and hollow measures as a positive sign.
It certainly couldn't hurt to try to garner some distance from those countries that do practice torture... Speaking of which, I don't suppose the order said anything about extraordinary rendition?...
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:WASHINGTON, July 20 — The White House said Friday that it had given the Central Intelligence Agency approval to resume its use of some severe interrogation methods for questioning terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas.
With the new authority, administration officials said the C.I.A. could proceed with an interrogation program that had been in limbo since the Supreme Court ruled last year that all prisoners in American captivity be treated in accordance with Geneva Convention prohibitions against humiliating and degrading treatment....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Probably correct, Samprimary, but given how little concern this administration has shown for the ideals or ideas of anyone outside a very small inner circle in the past, I'm inclined to think of even late and hollow measures as a positive sign.
Then you may ironically be thinking too positively. Really, this administration has just gone fully unhinged. Based off of recent events, I would venture a guess that this is even worse than a hollow measure; I think it may be actually an attempt to give a positive spin to try to gloss and distract from the fact that they are intent on doing whatever they want in their lame-duck twilight.
edit: see nato's post for conveniently timed example. hah.
MORALS AND VALUES
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Even back then, many of the whiny liberal French weenies
I know you like to flower your positions with pedantic, needlessly childish pejoratives, but adults are trying to discuss things here. Go take it elsewhere.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... I think it may be actually an attempt to give a positive spin to try to gloss and distract from the fact that they are intent on doing whatever they want in their lame-duck twilight...
The "anti-torture" executive order is what makes restarting the questionable interrogation practices possible.
In other news, Chertoff is having "gut feelings" about dirty bombs going off in LA and SF and my representative is being denied access to the White House's emergency preparedness plans for continuity of government in the case of what could appear to be a major terrorist attack.
quote: DeFazio asks, but he is denied access WASHINGTON -- Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.
"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.
Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.
"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."
...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Real question. Is Battler03 an alt?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
for Mig? I dunno.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: ... and my representative is being denied access to the White House's emergency preparedness plans for continuity of government in the case of what could appear to be a major terrorist attack.
Wow... How is this not all over the major national news sites?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Question: How many folks would be willing to support a large increase in funding and personnel for human intelligence? In other words, training and hiring lots and lots more spies?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could we get a promise (edit: legally binding of course. Any other sort appears to be worthless.) from the White House not to out them if they turn up Republicanly Incorrect things?
And, are we judging them based on ability or on political ideology and/or not being gay, as this administration has been doing?
---
What do you consider a large increase in funding Rakeesh? $100 million? $500 million? A full billion? From what I can tell, any such increase would be a drop in the bucket in comparision to what we spend in a month in Iraq.
[ July 21, 2007, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What do you consider a large increase in funding Rakeesh? $100 million? $500 million? A full billion? From what I can tell, any such increase would be a drop in the bucket in comparision to what we spend in a month in Iraq.
Spies are cheaper than soldiers, in terms of money, blood, and trouble avoided. I'm thinking billions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What are you planning on spending this money on?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A good spy network is always good. They are a component of a good intelligence network.
And as anyone who has watched our bumbling over the past six years knows, it's important to have an intelligence network worth listening to (even if you aren't gonna).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lots and lots of human intelligence. Spies, bribes, proxies, etc. etc. Making an investment right away in getting people to inform for us in the Middle East and Asia.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll admit I'm not well-informed about the state of the intelligence community, but I've gotten the impression that money is not the bottleneck you seem to think it is. That is, there isn't this pool of capable would-be spies out there that we just aren't dipping into and there aren't these amazing opportunitied to get sources inside the various groups against us that aren't being taken advantage of because we lack the money.
But, as I said, I'm not brimming with information on this. Do you have knowledge to the contrary?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Prior to this, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden was unsure whether cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was appropriate or not.
Are you basing this on some other statement by Hayden than the one you quoted? Because that statement spoke about what legal clarity, not whether something was appropriate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If they needed legal clarity about whether or not they could use cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, wouldn't it follow that they would do it (or at least seriously consider it) if it were legal?
I mean, if Director Hayden had decided not to do these things, determination as to whether or not it was technically legal would be irrelevant, not, as he said, needed.
edit: Actually, you know, they were toturing people, so it's not like what they would do is the issue. The legality of torture seems to be what they used to determine whether or not it was appropriate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If they needed legal clarity about whether or not they could use cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, wouldn't it follow that they would do it (or at least seriously consider it) if it were legal?
I mean, if Director Hayden had decided not to do these things, determination as to whether or not it was technically legal would be irrelevant, not, as he said, needed.
Legality is one element of appropriateness. It can be present - and often is - with respect to behavior that is not appropriate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Saying that something clarifying that something should not be done is needed means that other factors were not enough for people to make this determination. If they had decided that this was not appropriate, there would be no need for a legal order for them not to do it.
You've reversed the order above. Things can be legal, but not appropriate, sure. That isn't relevant here. Rather, it's things that would be stopped only if they were not legal. If they were innappropriate, but legal, they wouldn't be performed, thus there would be no need to clarify whether they are legal or not.
And, they had apparently decided, absent this executive order, that it was appropriate. They were torturing. This executive order supposedly put a stop to practices that were occuring.
What you said is true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the situation that we are discussing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Saying that something clarifying that something should not be done is needed means that other factors were not enough for people to make this determination. If they had decided that this was not appropriate, there would be no need for a legal order for them not to do it.
But if they hadn't decided this were not appropriate, your argument doesn't apply. And there's no particular reason to ignore one aspect while considering others.
quote:You've reversed the order above.
No, the actual mistake is your assumption that there is an "order" to how these things must be considered.
quote:If they were innappropriate, but legal, they wouldn't be performed, thus there would be no need to clarify whether they are legal or not.
You're making an unwarranted assumption that every aspect other than legality would be addressed prior to legality being addressed.
quote:And, they had apparently decided, absent this executive order, that it was appropriate.
You keep saying this. Can you cite it? The linked article does not support this claim.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But if they hadn't decided this were not appropriate, your argument doesn't apply.
Dag, Here's the statement you took issue with:
quote:Prior to this, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden was unsure whether cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was appropriate or not.
If your defense is that they didn't decide prior to this whether or not it was appropriate, what is your problem with someone saying that prior to this they were unsure whether or not it was appropriate?
As for establishing it, here's from the article:
quote: In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods, stress positions and - most controversially - the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)