Should the Bush Administration be Prosecuted for Using Torture?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Do you think that a independent commision be held to investigate and prosecute members of the Bush Administration who authorized ,condoned and justified the use of torture ?

Obama's stance:
-hasn't ruled it out the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor to “independently investigate (http://www.democrats.com/node/18749)” the “greatest crimes” committed by the Bush administration.
- But he said that his "orientation" was "to look forward as opposed to looking backwards (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/11/obama-special-prosecutor-torture/)."
- has said he doesn't support (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdxvkOhzjNneMr_LS4qY2ZUrtH-wD97MUS200) charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal.
-But he also said that it is up to the attorney general (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdxvkOhzjNneMr_LS4qY2ZUrtH-wD97MUS200)whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) : YES (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/09/leahy-truth-commission/) : called for an independent commission to investigate (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/09/leahy-truth-commission/) Bush

Attorney General Eric Holder:
- told Katie Couric last week that a commission is something that "Senator Leahy, the people in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the President will ultimately have to decide (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/eveningnews/main4930388_page3.shtml)."

UN Rapporteur On Torture: Obama's Pledge Not To Pursue Torture Prosecutions Of CIA Agents Is Not Legal

(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/)Read the full torture memos released last week:
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury_20pg.pdf
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf[/

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Report: Bush Officials Relied On Communist Torture Techniques To Press Detainees For Al Qaeda/Iraq Link

(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/senate-torture-report/)

Late yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee made public an unclassified version of its November 2008 report, "Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=1)." The report reveals that top Bush administration officials were so eager to start harsh interrogations on detainees that they often ignored warnings from military advisers, skipped a thorough legal review process, and failed to fully investigate the origins of the dangerous techniques. Moreover, the consequences of their actions trickled down to lower-ranking officers and led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Here are some highlights from the report:
-- Top Officials Were Unaware Of The Gruesome Origins Of The Interrogation Program. The Bush administration's interrogation program was based on the U.S. military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (http://washingtonindependent.com/39933/report-details-origins-of-bush-era-interrogation-policies) (SERE), which is used to train U.S. troops if they are ever tortured by an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. However, none of the top CIA, Cabinet, or congressional officials who approved of the Bush administration's recommendations knew that SERE was designed around "torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War...that had wrung false confessions from Americans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html)." These officials were unaware that veteran SERE trainers said the methods were ineffective for getting useful information and the former military psychologist who recommended that the CIA adopt SERE "had never conducted a real interrogation." One CIA official called the process "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm."
-- Military Officials Warned That Harsh Interrogation Was Illegal And Ineffective. In November 2002, the Deputy Commander of the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Task Force at Gitmo raised concerns that SERE techniques were "developed to better prepare U.S. military personnel (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/21/how-the-torture-started/) to resist interrogations and not as a means of obtaining reliable information (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=19)." The Air Force cited "serious concerns regarding the legality (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=20) of many of the proposed techniques." The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps raised similar issues, citing "maltreatment" that would "arguably violate federal law."
-- Abusive Tactics Were Used To Search For A Non-Existent Al-Qaeda/Iraq Link. In 2006, former U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney told investigators that interrogators at Gitmo were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html), even though they were ultimately unsuccesful. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link...there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/torturing-the-al-qaeda-iraq-connection/)."

-- Top Bush Officials Bypassed Military Concerns. Less than a month after the military voiced their concerns, then-Defense Department general counsel William Haynes sent then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a one-page memo recommending that he approve 15 out of 18 of the torture techniques requested for use at Gitmo. Haynes indicated that he had discussed the issue with Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Gen. Richard Myers, all of whom agreed with him. The only legal opinion Haynes cited in the memo was one that senior military advisers had called "legally insufficient" and "woefully inadequate." (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=21) Five days later, Rumsfeld signed off on the request.
-- Officials Began Preparing Harsh Interrogation Techniques Before They Were Granted Legal Approval. Military and intelligence officials were "exploring ways to break Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in early 2002, up to eight months (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104055.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2009042101921) before Justice Department lawyers approved the use of waterboarding and nine other harsh methods," and weeks before the CIA captured its first high-ranking terrorism suspect. In fact, in July 2002 -- a month before the Justice Department approved its list of interrogation techniques -- instructors at a training seminar told intelligence officials that the harsh measures were already deemed acceptable.
-- Bush's Torture Policies Led To Abuses At Abu Ghraib. In one of its conclusions, the Armed Services Committee writes, "The abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8012036.stm). ... Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment (http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=31) for detainees in U.S. custody."

[IAmNietzche]

There is a petition online that you should sign if your answer to the thread title is "yes".

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder,

We the undersigned citizens of the United States petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in torture and other war crimes.

These crimes are being euphemistically referred to as "abusive interrogation techniques (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735)" by such respected figures as Senator John McCain. These are euphemisms for torture. Torture is a war crime. Waterboarding is a war crime. The CIA has admitted waterboarding detainees. Former Vice President Cheney brazenly admitted (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6464697&page=1) authorizing the program that led to waterboarding, other forms of torture too numerous to list, and ultimately, the deaths by homicide (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1681676) of detainees.


As Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has stated: (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41514.html)"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
The Washington Post summarized (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101969.html?nav=hcmodule) the Senate Armed Services Committee Report (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735) on detainee treatment:A bipartisan panel of Senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
We the undersigned citizens demand a full and thorough investigation immediately. This investigation should be pursued no matter where it may lead and no matter what the political implications may be. To this end, we remind you that you work not on behalf of or for the President or the Congress, but for the People of the United States of America and for Justice itself.

The United States is a representative democracy. The actions of our government officials are done in the name of its citizens. War Crimes have been committed in our name. Torture has been done in our name. The only way to clear our name of war crimes is to repudiate them through the aggressive prosecution of each and every person involved to the fullest extent of the law through the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes

[saysmydoctor]

I'm beginning to shift. I think, if not the interrogators, who I don't believe are at fault, the guy giving the orders needs to. This is our decade's Watergate.

Krugman on the matter:


From Jonathan Landay at McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html), one of the few reporters to get the story right during the march to war:
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush’s quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/

[jwicklun]

the whole act of torture is very primitive. it's never a gaurentee that your going to get the exact information from the suspect, and if anyone knows the salem witch trials, people are willing to say anything to get them out of trouble/pain. on the other hand, it's difficult to get information from typical interrogation on a psychological level. but it brings up the question if we should defend our country by any means neccesary, even if it means throwing away our moral obligations. but alas, we are a nation that represents freedom and fair trial, and allowing torture would go under a slippery slope to the point where we can do "light" torture on any suspect in america.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

ya I'm in the "I don't know" camp, wavering somwhere in between "hell yes" and "let's just move on"

it is a delicate situation.

most me thinks that the full adminisration and congress should be focused on the economy right now.

[xshady121]

Absolutely not.

[saysmydoctor]

Are you implying they broke no laws?

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21569.html

The implications go beyond a typical Washington spat over “message control.” Obama’s moves virtually guarantee a sharp public focus on two uncomfortable questions that his team previously sought to leave vague:

*Should people be tried and even sent to prison—as many Democrats want—for what Obama regards as illegal practices under Bush?

*Even if wrong, did those practices have any positive results in stopping new attacks?

Obama’s own statements are murky on both questions.

On the first, administration sources said that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was articulating the White House’s true position Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” when he said Obama wants to discourage prosecutions. But his blunt-spoken statement of a position the White House usually prefers to keep comfortably vague sent liberal activists, including the influential group MoveOn, into an uproar. Obama was apparently trying to soothe these critics with his comment Tuesday that Attorney General Eric Holder was free to decide the matter on his own.

On the second matter, Obama as a candidate embraced the view that torture is both wrong and ineffective. But now that he has full access to the same top-secret documents cited by Cheney, the question cuts more sharply: Does he agree or disagree with Blair that coercive tactics produce valuable intelligence?

In a visit to the CIA Monday, he told intelligence personnel that, “What makes the United States special and what makes you special is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it’s hard. So, you’ve got a harder job, and so do I and that’s OK.”

Obama also shifted course Tuesday on another politically delicate issue: whether to create a blue-ribbon panel to investigate alleged anti-terror excesses from the Bush era.

[jwicklun]

well they did break a law: cruel and unusual punishment.

[J.C.]

Yes.

[x togepi x]

If we don't, we have no credibility when it comes to human rights abuses abroad. I mean, we didn't really have that credibility anyway, but perceptionally, we kind of did before bush.

[SpacePunk]

Obama's stance:
-hasn't ruled it out the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor to “independently investigate (http://www.democrats.com/node/18749)” the “greatest crimes” committed by the Bush administration.


This will NEVER happen.

[SpacePunk]

If we don't, we have no credibility when it comes to human rights abuses abroad. I mean, we didn't really have that credibility anyway, but perceptionally, we kind of did before bush.

Clinton's administration was hated in a lot of places in the world.

[x togepi x]

Clinton's administration was hated in a lot of places in the world.

so?

[Smeee]

Absolutely not.

Entirely agree.

[saysmydoctor]

Clinton's administration was hated in a lot of places in the world.
Was it because of his human rights record?
Entirely agree.

Absolutely not.
Neither of you two have explained your rationale, so I'm assuming you just listened to what Dick Cheney told you.

[alice+interiors]

This will NEVER happen.
True, but I feel that morally they should be tried. It was still wrong, and they deserve it, regardless of what will or won't happen.

[SpacePunk]

Was it because of his human rights record?



Downplaying Rwanda, and impeding effective UN intervention?

Pounding Afghanistan, Sudan to stave off impeachment didn't help either.

[saysmydoctor]

Downplaying Rwanda, and impeding effective UN intervention?

Pounding Afghanistan, Sudan to stave off impeachment didn't help either.
Not sure how that affects his human rights record. It is bad diplomacy, no doubt.

This isn't even human rights related.

I'll repeat togepi's "so?"

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

oh and torture does not "work" :


The so-called "ticking time-bomb" scenario Krauthammer cites is a canard. In fact, one former FBI agent who has interrogated terrorists said it has never happened. It's a "red herring (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/25/former-fbi-agent-ticking-bomb-scenario-is-a-red-herring/)," he said. "In the real world it doesn't happen." And torture doesn't "protect" anyone, as Kristol claimed. In fact, it has been directly linked to increased casualties (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html) in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the interrogator who got Abu Musab al-Zarqawi noted:
It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
Moreover, torture doesn't "work." The Washington Post reported that "not a single significant plot was foiled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066_pf.html) as a result" of the torture of Abu Zubaydah and that any useful information he had "was obtained before waterboarding was introduced." Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, another detainee known to have been waterboarded, "produced no actionable intelligence (http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812)," according to a former CIA official.

ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/17/fox-news-defends-torture/)

[xshady121]

Was it because of his human rights record?



Neither of you two have explained your rationale, so I'm assuming you just listened to what Dick Cheney told you.

You're a funny guy. If you spent half as much time reading my posts as you do trying to put your hatred of conservatives to words, you might have picked up on the fact that I didn't (and don't) approve of the Bush administration or Dick Cheney.

[saysmydoctor]

You're a funny guy. If you spent half as much time reading my posts as you do trying to put your hatred of conservatives to words, you might have picked up on the fact that I didn't (and don't) approve of the Bush administration or Dick Cheney.
You don't generally say anything, except dissent of the, admittedly, common 'liberal' opinion presented on this forum and then mock anyone who disagrees.

I guess, that makes you funny and typical.

[splitsecond]

You set a dangerous precedent and undermine the authority of future leaders if you prosecute for things like this. If the U.N. or some other treaty organization wants to condemn specific acts, that is one thing, but domestic prosecution of the executive branch for activities that had an arguable legal basis at the time of serious threat of future attacks completely undermines the authority granted it by law. Saying yes, quite frankly shows an immature viewpoint or a lack of understanding of history and both international and domestic law. I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about Obama's administration.

[splitsecond]

There is a petition online that you should sign if your answer to the thread title is "yes".



http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes

Petitions like this seems to make me think the Democrats are in a hurry to lose their seats in 2010. These are not the kinds of things middle-ground voters want to see, especially when domestic troubles are at the forefront of their minds. Remember - many of the same people who voted for Obama also voted for Bush knowing these practices existed.

[captainhampton]

oh and torture does not "work" :

Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data:President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

[J.C.]

You could use that to justify almost anything. Laws aren't mere suggestions.

[splitsecond]

You could use that to justify almost anything. Laws aren't mere suggestions.

In times of war or in matters of self defense, there are exceptions to laws. Laws are in place to protect citizens and keep order. Once that protection and order is broken, we sometimes have to make exceptions in order to restore it. Whether you agree with the actions taken under those circumstances is obviously something we can all disagree on, but prosecuting someone for doing what they believed necessary in those situations severely undermines the ability of future leaders to take appropriate gray area actions to restore peace and protect the nation.

[captainhampton]

The New York Times, which got a copy of the memo, also notices some odd redactions from the version released by the White House: Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information. When Dick Cheney demanded the release of the rest of the memos relating that information, he wasn’t just going on a fishing expedition. Cheney filed a request to declassify those memos in March, and the CIA has yet to decide on his request, but we can no longer doubt that records exist showing the success of those interrogations.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

You set a dangerous precedent and undermine the authority of future leaders if you prosecute for things like this. If the U.N. or some other treaty organization wants to condemn specific acts, that is one thing, but domestic prosecution of the executive branch for activities that had an arguable legal basis at the time of serious threat of future attacks completely undermines the authority granted it by law. Saying yes, quite frankly shows an immature viewpoint or a lack of understanding of history and both international and domestic law. I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about Obama's administration.

I have some questions for you since I know that you are a lawyer/in Law school :

What you think of Spain's investigation of torture at Guantanamo?

" arguable legal basis at the time of serious threat of future attacks completely undermines the authority granted it by law."

- So basically this all revolves around how and when interrpts the term "enemy combatants" and how that term falls into international law?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

The New York Times, which got a copy of the memo, also notices some odd redactions from the version released by the White House:Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information. When Dick Cheney demanded the release of the rest of the memos relating that information, he wasn’t just going on a fishing expedition. Cheney filed a request to declassify those memos in March, and the CIA has yet to decide on his request, but we can no longer doubt that records exist showing the success of those interrogations.

could you please post a hyperlink when you copy and paste from sources?

[captainhampton]

sure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp

[Machu505]

Yes.

My opinion on this is unshakable.

[Praetor]

I think, if not the interrogators, who I don't believe are at fault, the guy giving the orders needs to.
I fully agree with this sentiment.

[splitsecond]

I have some questions for you since I know that you are a lawyer/in Law school :

What you think of Spain's investigation of torture at Guantanamo?

" arguable legal basis at the time of serious threat of future attacks completely undermines the authority granted it by law."

- So basically this all revolves around how and when interrpts the term "enemy combatants" and how that term falls into international law?

Well, Spain can investigate anything it wants as they are an autonomous nation. Now if they attempted to imprison, punish, etc. American citizens based on the results of an investigation or "hearing" they may run the risk of violating international treaties. In line with my prior point, I think it is poor judgment for countries to run these sorts of investigations because it sets a precedent and severely undermines their power should they ever end up in a situation where they may need to make choices to protect themselves. We of course, don't have to acknowledge Spain's own interpretations. If the U.N., were to condemn our actions, we may have to consider their stance, but even then, we can hold our position of self defense.

As far as "enemy combatants" yes, it basically is up for interpretation. International law is even moreso up to interpretation because quite frankly it lacks teeth, and only exists by the grace of the autonomous nations who allow it to exist.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

The New York Times, which got a copy of the memo, also notices some odd redactions from the version released by the White House:Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information. When Dick Cheney demanded the release of the rest of the memos relating that information, he wasn’t just going on a fishing expedition. Cheney filed a request to declassify those memos in March, and the CIA has yet to decide on his request, but we can no longer doubt that records exist showing the success of those interrogations.

sure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp


I don't like that the Obama adminisrtation redacted that but look at this quote from that article:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

I think that the bolded part says it all. bascially the end did not justify the means.

[J.C.]

In times of war or in matters of self defense, there are exceptions to laws. Laws are in place to protect citizens and keep order. Once that protection and order is broken, we sometimes have to make exceptions in order to restore it. Whether you agree with the actions taken under those circumstances is obviously something we can all disagree on, but prosecuting someone for doing what they believed necessary in those situations severely undermines the ability of future leaders to take appropriate gray area actions to restore peace and protect the nation.

You are only recognizing one aspect of laws. They not only protect citizens from foreign threats, they also protect citizens from the power of their own government as well. Giving the government the authority to bypass laws on the books jeopardizes everyone's rights. I see your justification as a slippery slope with really nowhere for a line to be drawn.

If you aren't willing to stick to your morals when they're being tested most, they're not really morals.

[captainhampton]

In releasing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602768.html) highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html?nav=hcmoduletm v

[saysmydoctor]

Please don't use the term 'enemy combatants' to avoid the Geneva Convention.

[x togepi x]

Downplaying Rwanda, and impeding effective UN intervention?

Pounding Afghanistan, Sudan to stave off impeachment didn't help either.

What's cute about this is that i said that we didn't have that much ground to stand on to begin with, but it's now even easier in cases of human rights to say "well, you guys actually tortured people, who the fuck are you to tell us what we can do?"

You set a dangerous precedent and undermine the authority of future leaders if you prosecute for things like this. If the U.N. or some other treaty organization wants to condemn specific acts, that is one thing, but domestic prosecution of the executive branch for activities that had an arguable legal basis at the time of serious threat of future attacks completely undermines the authority granted it by law. Saying yes, quite frankly shows an immature viewpoint or a lack of understanding of history and both international and domestic law. I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about Obama's administration.

hello slippery slope fallacy. what's awesome about this is you ignore the fact that this precedent has already been set by the Nuremburg trials as well as the prosecution of Pinochet. (i know, mature viewpoints and understanding of both history and international/domestic law ignore precedents that disagree with our viewpoints)

You're also ignoring the fact that while the executive branch is given authority under the constitution, it's not given ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to do whatever it wants to prevent attacks. Proof of this is in basically every supreme court decision ever dealing with this issue. The only people who believe in absolute authority of the government are Hobbes and Gdub's lawyers, so try again there Tex. just because we prosecute them on an issue that's been illegal since pre-WW2.

you're also ignoring the fact that if we allow the Bush administration's precedent to stand, then you allow states to play semantical games to get around treaties. "oh, we're not building nuclear weapons which is illegal under the NPT, we're building legal atomic rocket devices. it's different because the words are different". You can't just allow nations to enter into agreements in international relations and then let them weasel out of them by creating new definitions.


and i don't care if torture works or not. it's wrong. one could make the argument that we could defeat terrorism by causing a nuclear war that would end the human race, but i wouldn't say that's the right way to go.

[x togepi x]

i mean, basically, if any of this shit was happening to an american every conservative on this board would get a boner and spew psuedopatriotic bullshit about how we need to bring whoever was doing the torturing to justice by any means necessary, but since it's being done to someone else's citizen, it's not so bad and we should let the bush administration get off scott free.

i'm sorry for thinking alleged terrorists are people who deserve human rights regardless of what they may or may not have done.

[Duexy]

we executed japanese soldiers who used the waterboarding techniques on american pows.



just sayin

[Machu505]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/torture.prosecution/index.html

Eric Holder says he will "follow the law and take that where it leads."

[MyNameIsRoss]

Crucify

[starshine1763]

In releasing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602768.html) highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html?nav=hcmoduletm v

The "prevented attack" on Los Angeles happened in 2002. Mohammed was captured in 2003. Please explain how the testimony he provided prevented the attack on Los Angeles.

[more heart]

I refuse to vote only due to my bias.

...but yes they should

[TK]

No.

[batmannj]

No way.

[J.C.]

The new ABC/Washington Post poll showed a majority of Americans favor investigation into the Bush Administration's detainee practices.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/explaining-torture-polling.html
Nate Silver breaking down the American opinion on torture investigation

[GeeBee]

In releasing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602768.html) highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html?nav=hcmoduletm v

If it's so damn effective, why did it take 100+ times of waterboarding to get the information they wanted?
That's not called effective, that's called fluke.

[captainhampton]

sure just a fluke.

[saysmydoctor]

He was waterboarded 100+ times.

Screw it:

4LPubUCJv58

[GeeBee]

sure just a fluke.

Do you ever elaborate on your oh-so-witty one-sentence jabs?
Throw up an argument for Christ's sake.

[Machu505]

oyzty-UN3Yg

[open mind]

once we've discovered the way to prevent future crime i'll ease up on thinking past crimes should be prosecuted.

[GeeBee]

once we've discovered the way to prevent future crime i'll ease up on thinking past crimes should be prosecuted.

Minority Report ftw.

[saysmydoctor]

Prxin-Lj5Ks&feature=player_embedded

[MickShamrock]

Yes.

[Praetor]

Prxin-Lj5Ks&feature=player_embedded
Who's this douche? Guy thinks he's Jon Stewart.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah I can't stand him, but it's the only video I could find with Rice's comments.

[xshady121]

oyzty-UN3Yg

That would be applicable of the Bush Administration committed war crimes.

[x togepi x]

That would be applicable of the Bush Administration committed war crimes.

Torture is a war crime, dog.

[xshady121]

Torture is a war crime, dog.

Yes, if done to prisoners of war.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, if done to prisoners of war.
What is an enemy combatant but a politically correct way of saying prisoner of war?

[xshady121]

What is an enemy combatant but a politically correct way of saying prisoner of war?

A prisoner of war is entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Since an enemy combatant is an unlawful combatant, they are not protected under the Geneva Convention. So, there is a big difference between the two terms.

[Lueda Alia]

Absolutely.

[FemaleCuckold]

A prisoner of war is entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Since an enemy combatant is an unlawful combatant, they are not protected under the Geneva Convention. So, there is a big difference between the two terms.

Ah, the legal loophole.

Prisoner of war = human.
Unlawful combatant = human.

They should both be treated like humans.

[x togepi x]

A prisoner of war is entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Since an enemy combatant is an unlawful combatant, they are not protected under the Geneva Convention. So, there is a big difference between the two terms.

I just love the fact that your argument boils down to semantics. Like I said, if this were happening to an American soldier, you would be pissed off, but since it's an "unlawful" enemy combatant, suddenly all bets are off.

but like i said before, this argument opens up the door to just defining our way out of any treaty ever. Oh, sorry russia, these aren't new nuclear weapons, they're atomic energy based ballistic warfare systems. It's completely different dude.

[saysmydoctor]

A prisoner of war is entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Since an enemy combatant is an unlawful combatant, they are not protected under the Geneva Convention. So, there is a big difference between the two terms.
No there isn't.

[Adeniz19]

Well, aren't "unlawful combatants" supposed to be treated under the municipal law of the detainer? Pretty sure we aren't supposed to torture our prisoners here, so even if it isn't technically a "war crime", someone still broke the law by torturing these people. If a detective waterboarded a serial killer to get information, I'm pretty sure they would be in jail by now.

[xshady121]

Ah, the legal loophole.

Prisoner of war = human.
Unlawful combatant = human.

They should both be treated like humans.

Oversimplification.

I just love the fact that your argument boils down to semantics. Like I said, if this were happening to an American soldier, you would be pissed off, but since it's an "unlawful" enemy combatant, suddenly all bets are off.

but like i said before, this argument opens up the door to just defining our way out of any treaty ever. Oh, sorry russia, these aren't new nuclear weapons, they're atomic energy based ballistic warfare systems. It's completely different dude.

Nope. An American soldier would always be a lawful combatant.

[GeeBee]

Oversimplification.



Nope. An American soldier would always be a lawful combatant.

Oversimplification.

You really are king of one-word soundbyte answers aren't you? You know, this is a discussion thread. You can substantiate your arguments. Otherwise, you don't add much. Just sayin'.

[saysmydoctor]

If it's wearing a uniform, it's a lawful warrior. That is essentially what you are implying. What kind of fucking retarded logic is that? I mean granted, I get heated in my disagreements with you, but what you are saying right now is borderline retarded.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

It makes me sick that whether or not the techniques were successful even comes up. Its torture. Its detestable. And if another country were doing it, we'd be overthrowing them right now.

And American soldiers are not always lawful combatants in the eyes of their captors. The point of the Geneva convention is to keep countries from deciding how to treat a prisoner on their own terms, which we in this case have done. We call them something else so that everyone can sleep at night and then we do whatever we want to them. To say, "well our soldiers are never the same as the people we're capturing" is ignorant because the nation that captures our soldiers might seem them the same way we see any random Arab guy we pluck out of Afghanistan.


I just love the fact that your argument boils down to semantics. Like I said, if this were happening to an American soldier, you would be pissed off, but since it's an "unlawful" enemy combatant, suddenly all bets are off.

but like i said before, this argument opens up the door to just defining our way out of any treaty ever. Oh, sorry russia, these aren't new nuclear weapons, they're atomic energy based ballistic warfare systems. It's completely different dude.

this. this. this.

[xshady121]

If it's wearing a uniform, it's a lawful warrior. That is essentially what you are implying. What kind of fucking retarded logic is that? I mean granted, I get heated in my disagreements with you, but what you are saying right now is borderline retarded.

That is 100% not what I'm saying at all.

[FemaleCuckold]

Oversimplification.


Not at all. It is that simple.

As basic human rights move forward, you seem to be doing all you can to make sure we stay barbaric. It's disgusting.

[xshady121]

Not at all. It is that simple.

Maybe in this idealistic world you would like to believe we live in, but not in reality. There is no universal code of ethics for us to live by. What we have is the geneva convention, which doesn't protect rogue civilians who wage a war of ideology and fight for an idea and not a flag.

Edit:: I like that little caveat you added afterwards. It only adds to the belief I have of your level of immaturity and naivety. I'm not doing all I can to make sure we stay barbaric. As someone who fights for civil liberties, I consider your statement offensive. I am, however, highly interested in the law. And at the end of the day, nothing you have said comes anywhere close to resembling any laws we abide by.

[x togepi x]

way to touch my argument by definition. hopefully someone doesn't kill you and claim he wasn't murdering you because you're not a human being, you're an organic bipedal quasi-intelligent ape.

[loveisdead]

:lol: that's fucking amazing.

[saysmydoctor]

Maybe in this idealistic world you would like to believe we live in, but not in reality. There is no universal code of ethics for us to live by. What we have is the geneva convention, which doesn't protect rogue civilians who wage a war of ideology and fight for an idea and not a flag.

Edit:: I like that little caveat you added afterwards. It only adds to the belief I have of your level of immaturity and naivety. I'm not doing all I can to make sure we stay barbaric. As someone who fights for civil liberties, I consider your statement offensive. I am, however, highly interested in the law. And at the end of the day, nothing you have said comes anywhere close to resembling any laws we abide by.
Rogue civilians? Like the Viet Cong? I don't think the general public liked My Lai either. Try again.

[GeeBee]

That is 100% not what I'm saying at all.

Jesus...what the fuck ARE you saying?!?
Are you this interesting a conversationalist IRL?

[FemaleCuckold]

Maybe in this idealistic world you would like to believe we live in, but not in reality. There is no universal code of ethics for us to live by. What we have is the geneva convention, which doesn't protect rogue civilians who wage a war of ideology and fight for an idea and not a flag.

Edit:: I like that little caveat you added afterwards. It only adds to the belief I have of your level of immaturity and naivety. I'm not doing all I can to make sure we stay barbaric. As someone who fights for civil liberties, I consider your statement offensive. I am, however, highly interested in the law. And at the end of the day, nothing you have said comes anywhere close to resembling any laws we abide by.

No, I just don't buy ethical relativism. You're saying one group of people should be allowed to be tortured while another shouldn't. To deny that there are not certain universal ethical principles that people abide by that surpass country and culture is insane. That's immature and naive. We have a lot more than the Geneva Convention. Just because there is no law against something yet does not make it ok. And just because there is a law against something does not make it right. Spend less time studying law and more on ethics and philosophy. You clearly need to.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I love the assertion that its idealistic to say we shouldn't torture people.

Oh please, Rush Jr, teach us about the "real world". Please? Will ya?

[Jake Denning]

Politics forum is always such an angry place.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Politics forum is always such an angry place.

Yea. Although its far more humaine (sp?) in here than in a Guantanimo interrogation room.

[xshady121]

I love the assertion that its idealistic to say we shouldn't torture people.

Oh please, Rush Jr, teach us about the "real world". Please? Will ya?

That shows me that your a newbie here. I loathe Rush. If you were around for my review of CPAC, you'd know that I booed the man and the Republican party for declaring him the "voice of the conservative movement". Your failed attempt at wit might be better if you compared me to a political voice I listen to. Oh wait, that wouldn't be as funny. Shucks.

[xshady121]

No, I just don't buy ethical relativism. You're saying one group of people should be allowed to be tortured while another shouldn't. To deny that there are not certain universal ethical principles that people abide by that surpass country and culture is insane. That's immature and naive. We have a lot more than the Geneva Convention. Just because there is no law against something yet does not make it ok. And just because there is a law against something does not make it right. Spend less time studying law and more on ethics and philosophy. You clearly need to.

It's idealistic to believe there will ever be one.

[GeeBee]

That shows me that your a newbie here. I loathe Rush. If you were around for my review of CPAC, you'd know that I booed the man and the Republican party for declaring him the "voice of the conservative movement". Your failed attempt at wit might be better if you compared me to a political voice I listen to. Oh wait, that wouldn't be as funny. Shucks.

You might even call yourself a "maverick" conservative, eh?
You come off as just a contrarian.

[GeeBee]

Politics forum is always such an angry place.

Dude, you made this same comment over in the religion debate thread...I'm starting to think you may have a mutant superpower of observation.

:bluesiren:

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

That shows me that your a newbie here. I loathe Rush. If you were around for my review of CPAC, you'd know that I booed the man and the Republican party for declaring him the "voice of the conservative movement". Your failed attempt at wit might be better if you compared me to a political voice I listen to. Oh wait, that wouldn't be as funny. Shucks.

It's convenient to critique my joke and not respond to the point of my post and others.

[GeeBee]

It's convenient to critique my joke and not respond to the point of my post and others.

This. I think the guy gets off on people wanting his opinion, so he just baits them for it.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, the dude is intentionally short and ambiguous in everything he says and is the biggest nitpicker of posts imaginable.

For instance, he would rename this thread more appropriately: "Should--and this is purely hypothetical--prosecute the former Bush Administration for using enhanced interrogation techniques on unlawful enemy combatants?"

Simply because it sounds gentler. But that's the problem with political correctness and the vigilante that prescribe to that school of thought. Senior citizens are old people. Torture is torture. You are endorsing an Orwellian method of utilizing a person's worst fear--above all others--dying. There is no defense to that. Whatsoever. None. No matter what language you attach to it. The history books paint Stalin as a man who endorsed and utilized torture. The history books condemn acts like racial profiling in WW2 against the Japanese and Italians. The US can't place itself on this moral high ground, on a pedestal, having condemned the actions of past governments of this country and other countries and then revert back to that same methodology. Sorry.

[xshady121]

Jesus...what the fuck ARE you saying?!?
Are you this interesting a conversationalist IRL?

Yes.

[xshady121]

You might even call yourself a "maverick" conservative, eh?
You come off as just a contrarian.

Well, when the overwhelmingly prevalent voice of these boards is liberal, then it is easy to mistake me for being contrarian. But in response to your calling me a "maverick" conservative, that is off base. I would be more apt to call myself a Ron Paul conservative.

[loveisdead]

Yeah, the dude is intentionally short and ambiguous in everything he says and is the biggest nitpicker of posts imaginable.

For instance, he would rename this thread more appropriately: "Should--and this is purely hypothetical--prosecute the former Bush Administration for using enhanced interrogation techniques on unlawful enemy combatants?"

Simply because it sounds gentler. But that's the problem with political correctness and the vigilante that prescribe to that school of thought. Senior citizens are old people. Torture is torture. You are endorsing an Orwellian method of utilizing a person's worst fear--above all others--dying. There is no defense to that. Whatsoever. None. No matter what language you attach to it. The history books paint Stalin as a man who endorsed and utilized torture. The history books condemn acts like racial profiling in WW2 against the Japanese and Italians. The US can't place itself on this moral high ground, on a pedestal, having condemned the actions of past governments of this country and other countries and then revert back to that same methodology. Sorry.
:appl: Well done, sir.

[FemaleCuckold]

Well, when the overwhelmingly prevalent voice of these boards is liberal, then it is easy to mistake me for being contrarian. But in response to your calling me a "maverick" conservative, that is off base. I would be more apt to call myself a Ron Paul conservative.

Ron Paul is against torture.

/just sayin'

[xshady121]

Ron Paul is against torture.

/just sayin'

I wasn't aware that to support a candidate I must agree with every one of his positions. I will shoot you a PM when I have to fill out my absentee ballot in October to make sure I don't have any of these contradictions in beliefs again.

Thanks.

[saysmydoctor]

Just avoiding my post or is that you can't really justify the US policy without semantics?

[FemaleCuckold]

I wasn't aware that to support a candidate I must agree with every one of his positions. I will shoot you a PM when I have to fill out my absentee ballot in October to make sure I don't have any of these contradictions in beliefs again.

Thanks.

That's ok. I'd rather comfort myself thinking you didn't vote.

[GeeBee]

Well, when the overwhelmingly prevalent voice of these boards is liberal, then it is easy to mistake me for being contrarian. But in response to your calling me a "maverick" conservative, that is off base. I would be more apt to call myself a Ron Paul conservative.

Saw Ron Paul on Real Time w/ Bill Maher...guy came off as batshit looney.
Libertarians are just as "idealistic" if not moreso than any other political movement I can think of.

[Villanova1L]

well they did break a law: cruel and unusual punishment.

If you're talking about the Constitutional right, no they didn't because those we captured weren't United States citizens and don't get the rights afforded them in the Constitution.

If you're talking about a natural law right, maybe, but applicability of natural law to trial/condemnation of acts is a tough sell.

[GeeBee]

If you're talking about the Constitutional right, no they didn't because those we captured weren't United States citizens and don't get the rights afforded them in the Constitution.

If you're talking about a natural law right, maybe, but applicability of natural law to trial/condemnation of acts is a tough sell.

To the radical right wing in this country---
Just because something may be LEGAL, doesn't make it RIGHT or ETHICAL.

[Villanova1L]

To the radical right wing in this country---
Just because something may be LEGAL, doesn't make it RIGHT or ETHICAL.

This argument fails because there is no universal ethic, there is no universal right or wrong. Just because people don't apply your definition of right doesn't mean it is wrong. There is definitely a debate to be had here, but to create a ethics/rights baseline is damn near impossible.

I could argue it is not ethical or right for people to break laws of the Geneva Convention and then hide behind it when they are being punished. Terrorists break laws of the Geneva Convention everyday in "combat" yet expect those who capture them to abide by it. This doesn't work.

On a philosophy analogy it'd be like repeatedly breaking a social contract and then demanding its protections. You can't have it both ways.

[GeeBee]

This argument fails because there is no universal ethic, there is no universal right or wrong. Just because people don't apply your definition of right doesn't mean it is wrong. There is definitely a debate to be had here, but to create a ethics/rights baseline is damn near impossible.

I could argue it is not ethical or right for people to break laws of the Geneva Convention and then hide behind it when they are being punished. Terrorists break laws of the Geneva Convention everyday in "combat" yet expect those who capture them to abide by it. This doesn't work.

On a philosophy analogy it'd be like repeatedly breaking a social contract and then demanding its protections. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, you can. You and everyone else knows it's wrong to torture people. You know it's wrong to cheat on your taxes. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
I'm not arguing that there's a universal morality, but as far as torture goes, there's not a rational argument in the world that can make it right. Especially not the ones the right wing has been throwing around.

[FemaleCuckold]

This argument fails because there is no universal ethic, there is no universal right or wrong.

So it's just by chance that all countries have laws against, say, stealing and murder?

[Villanova1L]

Yeah, you can. You and everyone else knows it's wrong to torture people. You know it's wrong to cheat on your taxes. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
I'm not arguing that there's a universal morality, but as far as torture goes, there's not a rational argument in the world that can make it right. Especially not the ones the right wing has been throwing around.

You say you aren't arguing for universal morality, but you are in regards to torture. You're completely contradicting yourself.

What if I told you that by waterboarding one person 2000 times you could stop a terrorist attack that saves 20,000 people? How's that for a rational argument?

Given, I'm not making that argument, but I don't see how it is flawed. Torture of one person to save thousands seems like an ok statement.

[Villanova1L]

So it's just by chance that all countries have laws against, say, stealing and murder?

All governments believing something doesn't make it universal. Things like stealing and murder are common yes, but not universal. Also, notice how you didn't mention torture, which is the topic we are speaking about.

[FemaleCuckold]

You say you aren't arguing for universal morality, but you are in regards to torture. You're completely contradicting yourself.

What if I told you that by waterboarding one person 2000 times you could stop a terrorist attack that saves 20,000 people? How's that for a rational argument?

Given, I'm not making that argument, but I don't see how it is flawed. Torture of one person to save thousands seems like an ok statement.

It invokes the fallacy of the end justifying the means.

How about we take ten people and, against their will, give them rare forms of cancer and then kill them to dissect them. This research would yield results that may save millions in the future. Sounds great, huh?

[GeeBee]

You say you aren't arguing for universal morality, but you are in regards to torture. You're completely contradicting yourself.

What if I told you that by waterboarding one person 2000 times you could stop a terrorist attack that saves 20,000 people? How's that for a rational argument?

Given, I'm not making that argument, but I don't see how it is flawed. Torture of one person to save thousands seems like an ok statement.

I don't believe in universal morality. I'm asking you for a rational argument for torture, other than the extremely tired argument that it "might save lives", which there is no evidence that it does.

To answer your question, if you have to waterboard someone that many times (like Zabeda), I'd question the quality of what you're getting. As yourself, is there anything you WOULDN'T say if you were under that duress, just to make it stop? You don't see how this argument is flawed?

If you're willing to become a barbarian to save yourself from barbaric acts, what exactly are you fighting for?

[GeeBee]

All governments believing something doesn't make it universal. Things like stealing and murder are common yes, but not universal. Also, notice how you didn't mention torture, which is the topic we are speaking about.

Yeah, it's pretty much universal that murder is wrong, not because of some metaphysical universal morality, but because there's no rational or logical reason to shed innocent blood.
It's not universal morality, it's common sense that we have evolved to the point where we know it's to our detriment to have a society that allows theft and murder.

[FemaleCuckold]

All governments believing something doesn't make it universal. Things like stealing and murder are common yes, but not universal. Also, notice how you didn't mention torture, which is the topic we are speaking about.

We're speaking about universal morality. I gave you examples. Of course, they aren't universal in the purest sense, in that the knowledge was bestowed upon humanity by some external source or that every single person follows them. However, there are no rational arguments against them and they are recognized by every society to be morally wrong. So they are universal in the functionalist sense, which is what matters and counts in the world.

Take slavery, for example. There is absolutely no way to justify slavery. There are no arguments in its favor in order to make it morally correct. Yet, to this day, some circles still practice it. Does this mean it is not universally wrong? No. It simply means that moral thought and moral behavior often do not coincide. It also means that humans are capable of "missing the mark," so to speak, concerning morality and ethics.

edit: Torture does not have to be outlawed in every country in order for it to be morally wrong, universally. It does not even have to be believed to be wrong by everyone in order for it to be universally wrong. It's either ethical to torture someone or it is not. Only by using our knowledge of modern human rights can we determine if it is ethical or unethical, just has been done with slavery. If one country believes torture is ethical, and another country believes it is unethical, that does not mean it is "right" for both of them. One of the countries is doing something unethical.

[Villanova1L]

It invokes the fallacy of the end justifying the means.

How about we take ten people and, against their will, give them rare forms of cancer and then kill them to dissect them. This research would yield results that may save millions in the future. Sounds great, huh?

What if I told you I was fine with this? Better yet we raise people to do this to.

[Villanova1L]

I don't believe in universal morality. I'm asking you for a rational argument for torture, other than the extremely tired argument that it "might save lives", which there is no evidence that it does.

To answer your question, if you have to waterboard someone that many times (like Zabeda), I'd question the quality of what you're getting. As yourself, is there anything you WOULDN'T say if you were under that duress, just to make it stop? You don't see how this argument is flawed?

If you're willing to become a barbarian to save yourself from barbaric acts, what exactly are you fighting for?

Not fighting FOR anything, fighting on the same plane, evening the odds if you will.

I do question the quality of information. I just don't think there is a universal morality that says no torture. I honestly believe that people who exempt themselves from "practices of war" and fight outside the "rules" can't hide behind those rules later. Care to explain to me how that statement is wrong? Aside from saying we're going to their level, which I concede?

[Villanova1L]

We're speaking about universal morality. I gave you examples. Of course, they aren't universal in the purest sense, in that the knowledge was bestowed upon humanity by some external source or that every single person follows them. However, there are no rational arguments against them and they are recognized by every society to be morally wrong. So they are universal in the functionalist sense, which is what matters and counts in the world.

Take slavery, for example. There is absolutely no way to justify slavery. There are no arguments in its favor in order to make it morally correct. Yet, to this day, some circles still practice it. Does this mean it is not universally wrong? No. It simply means that moral thought and moral behavior often do not coincide.

Right and if moral thought and moral behavior do not coincide in every instance, which is unquestionably true, then there can be no universal right/wrong and you're simply drawing a line and picking who has more bodies on their side and calling that right vs. wrong.

[GeeBee]

Not fighting FOR anything, fighting on the same plane, evening the odds if you will.

I do question the quality of information. I just don't think there is a universal morality that says no torture. I honestly believe that people who exempt themselves from "practices of war" and fight outside the "rules" can't hide behind those rules later. Care to explain to me how that statement is wrong? Aside from saying we're going to their level, which I concede?

Becoming everything you hate, if you will.

You're basically saying that since criminals break the rules, they aren't entitled to protection of the law. That's false. Human rights are human rights. They apply to the rule-makers and the rule-breakers alike. We don't live in medieval times anymore.

[GeeBee]

What if I told you I was fine with this? Better yet we raise people to do this to.

I would tell you to take an ethics class and then ask you to volunteer to be the human guinea pig.

[Villanova1L]

Yeah, it's pretty much universal that murder is wrong, not because of some metaphysical universal morality, but because there's no rational or logical reason to shed innocent blood.
It's not universal morality, it's common sense that we have evolved to the point where we know it's to our detriment to have a society that allows theft and murder.

"Innocent blood?" Is there any instance where murder is acceptable? I'd say there definitely is.

Detriment to society is a tricky phrase to use because it matters who views it as a detriment. Some people argue, in fact I'd say the majority of our country, would argue that homosexuality creates a detriment to society, but I'm guessing you have a problem with things like banning gay marriage.

Line drawing creates problems, no matter who is drawing the lines.

[Villanova1L]

I would tell you to take an ethics class and then ask you to volunteer to be the human guinea pig.

Doesn't do much for your argument though.

Ethics class? Again, stating things that created/suggest a universal ethic.

[Villanova1L]

Becoming everything you hate, if you will.

You're basically saying that since criminals break the rules, they aren't entitled to protection of the law. That's false. Human rights are human rights. They apply to the rule-makers and the rule-breakers alike. We don't live in medieval times anymore.

I wouldn't call it becoming what you hate, but I'd call it adjusting to your opponent.

Again, not entirely true. Law breakers get limited protection, not absolute protections.

I'm saying that because criminals break rules they are punished, certainly you agree with that. Terrorists fight outside the rules of war and are punished, that is the more proper analogy.

[GeeBee]

"Innocent blood?" Is there any instance where murder is acceptable? I'd say there definitely is.

Detriment to society is a tricky phrase to use because it matters who views it as a detriment. Some people argue, in fact I'd say the majority of our country, would argue that homosexuality creates a detriment to society, but I'm guessing you have a problem with things like banning gay marriage.

Line drawing creates problems, no matter who is drawing the lines.

I'll be waiting for your post that justifies murder.

Again, all I'm asking is for the U.S. of A. to take the high ground. We're not the barbarians in this fight.
Your example doesn't fit, because you can't make a rational, logical argument against homosexuality. You CAN make a rational, logical argument against the torture of another human being. The fact that this stuff has to be explained to you is truly sad. You're grasping for straws here.

[GeeBee]

I wouldn't call it becoming what you hate, but I'd call it adjusting to your opponent.

Again, not entirely true. Law breakers get limited protection, not absolute protections.

I'm saying that because criminals break rules they are punished, certainly you agree with that. Terrorists fight outside the rules of war and are punished, that is the more proper analogy.

Adjusting to your opponent? Your semantic arguments are as ridiculous as they are illogical. Do parents "adjust" to the level of their kids? To juries "adjust" to the level of criminals? NO! You're arguing out of one side of your mouth that there are no universal rules, but then out of the other side, you're claiming that torture is justified because the "enemy combatants" fought outside the rules of war!

[GeeBee]

Doesn't do much for your argument though.

Ethics class? Again, stating things that created/suggest a universal ethic.

Not a universal ethic, a reasonable expectation for human beings that live in the 21st century.

[Villanova1L]

I'll be waiting for your post that justifies murder.

Again, all I'm asking is for the U.S. of A. to take the high ground. We're not the barbarians in this fight.
Your example doesn't fit, because you can't make a rational, logical argument against homosexuality. You CAN make a rational, logical argument against the torture of another human being. The fact that this stuff has to be explained to you is truly sad. You're grasping for straws here.

3 people on a boat starving to death, 2 gain up against 1, kill him and eat him, are found 2 hours later. Was the murder justified? There's circumstance that can justify anything. Here I think the circumstances surrounding terrorists and their activities can justify torture.

My point on homosexuality is that you are line drawing based on a majority. Nothing more, nothing less. The "rational argument" is subjective because if a majority finds an argument against homosexuality compelling and rational, who is to say that you (the minority objecting) are in fact being irrational?

I hope you see my issue with the picking sides, not the issues themselves.

[Villanova1L]

Adjusting to your opponent? Your semantic arguments are as ridiculous as they are illogical. Do parents "adjust" to the level of their kids? To juries "adjust" to the level of criminals? NO! You're arguing out of one side of your mouth that there are no universal rules, but then out of the other side, you're claiming that torture is justified because the "enemy combatants" fought outside the rules of war!

You are out of your mind if you don't think that juries adjust based on what a criminal has done or looks like or a variety of other factors.

I am arguing that there are no universal rules. PERIOD. They don't have to fight within the rules, we don't either.

If you argue their are rules, Geneva Convention, THEN I would argue in the alternative that those specific don't apply to anyone outside breaking that same set of specific rules, so that particular argument is fails.

They aren't in contradiction of each other, but rather substitutes for one another.

[GeeBee]

3 people on a boat starving to death, 2 gain up against 1, kill him and eat him, are found 2 hours later. Was the murder justified? There's circumstance that can justify anything. Here I think the circumstances surrounding terrorists and their activities can justify torture.

My point on homosexuality is that you are line drawing based on a majority. Nothing more, nothing less. The "rational argument" is subjective because if a majority finds an argument against homosexuality compelling and rational, who is to say that you (the minority objecting) are in fact being irrational?

I hope you see my issue with the picking sides, not the issues themselves.

Again, logical fallacy of ends justifying means.

I said nothing about majorities/minorities, I discussed rational arguments. There is no rational argument against homosexuality because both parties are consenting, there is no victim. Logic is your friend.

And no, I don't see ANY of your points.

[Villanova1L]

Not a universal ethic, a reasonable expectation for human beings that live in the 21st century.

Who gets to set this "reasonable expectation?" You? 50% +1 of all people in the world?

Also, I haven't said one thing about you being stupid but kept the arguments to the merits, I'd hope you could do the same.

[FemaleCuckold]

Right and if moral thought and moral behavior do not coincide in every instance, which is unquestionably true, then there can be no universal right/wrong and you're simply drawing a line and picking who has more bodies on their side and calling that right vs. wrong.

It has absolutely nothing to do with who has more bodies and how many people believe it be so. The entire world practiced and believed in slavery hundreds of years ago. It was as wrong then as it is now, no matter how many people practiced it.

I've shoplifted before. Did I know it was ethically wrong? Yes. But I did it anyway. Did I try to rationalize my behavior afterward? Yes. Does this mean this instance demonstrates that it's not ethically wrong to steal? Not in the slightest.

I'm done with this debate. Like GeeBee said, take a course in ethics. Then I wouldn't have to spend my time regurgitating ethical theory to you.

[Villanova1L]

Again, logical fallacy of ends justifying means.

I said nothing about majorities/minorities, I discussed rational arguments. There is no rational argument against homosexuality because both parties are consenting, there is no victim. Logic is your friend.

And no, I don't see ANY of your points.

Discussion of rational arguments turns on what a majority of people determine to be rational.

If I said that homosexuality is wrong because it promotes non-traditional family, which in turn creates lower morality in a society, you would no doubt tell me that is not rational. The only reason it isn't rational is because you don't deem it to be.

Also, the argument about no victims is questionable when it comes to homosexuality. There are victims outside of immediate crime all the time.

[GeeBee]

Who gets to set this "reasonable expectation?" You? 50% +1 of all people in the world?

Also, I haven't said one thing about you being stupid but kept the arguments to the merits, I'd hope you could do the same.

Apparently the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution of the United States of America, Federal Penal Code, State Law...I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

If you can find an instance of me bashing you personally, I'll be glad to apologize. As to bashing your POV, you enter at your own risk.

[Villanova1L]

It has absolutely nothing to do with who has more bodies and how many people believe it be so. The entire world practiced and believed in slavery hundreds of years ago. It was as wrong then as it is now, no matter how many people practiced it.

I've shoplifted before. Did I know it was ethically wrong? Yes. But I did it anyway. Did I try to rationalize my behavior afterward? Yes. Does this mean this instance demonstrates that it's not ethically wrong to steal? Not in the slightest.

I'm done with this debate. Like GeeBee said, take a course in ethics. Then I wouldn't have to spend my time regurgitating ethical theory to you.

When you walk away from an argument saying take a class, it doesn't do much for your argument. The fact I don't believe in the same ethical theory of you does nothing to strengthen your argument.

It has EVERYTHING to do with number of people believing in something, unless you're telling me there is a natural law against torture or shop lifting or any other crime. Defining a natural law is going to be very difficult for you to do. You KNEW it was ethically wrong because you were in a society which taught you it was ethically wrong. If you knew no better, then you would not believe it to be ethically wrong, which cuts directly against any notion of natural law.

[GeeBee]

Discussion of rational arguments turns on what a majority of people determine to be rational.

If I said that homosexuality is wrong because it promotes non-traditional family, which in turn creates lower morality in a society, you would no doubt tell me that is not rational. The only reason it isn't rational is because you don't deem it to be.

Also, the argument about no victims is questionable when it comes to homosexuality. There are victims outside of immediate crime all the time.

Ok, you've just opened a whole new can of nonsense, so I'm done.

[Villanova1L]

Apparently the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution of the United States of America, Federal Penal Code, State Law...I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

If you can find an instance of me bashing you personally, I'll be glad to apologize. As to bashing your POV, you enter at your own risk.

And which of the above provides protection from torture for terrorists?

[Villanova1L]

Ok, you've just opened a whole new can of nonsense, so I'm done.

How is it nonsense to ask you to tell me who determines rationality? I'll move off that argument if you just tell me where rationality comes from for you personally.

[oldwirehands]

_FWLZBBGR0s

Well, at least there are other people in the world moving towards prosecution.

[GeeBee]

And which of the above provides protection from torture for terrorists?

How is it nonsense to ask you to tell me who determines rationality? I'll move off that argument if you just tell me where rationality comes from for you personally.

If we operated societies based on the ambiguities and semantics which you espouse, we'd be reverting back into the stone age.
Rationality in this argument comes from my personal desire not to want my country to revert to medieval practices to gain information, the validity of which will always be in question due to the manner in which it was obtained!

So, if the terrorists captured YOU and claimed YOU were operating outside the rules of Sharia law, you'd be cool with them torturing you to make sure that they could save the lives of their cohorts in Al Qaeda? After all, you claim that there are no universal rules. You're up for it?

[GeeBee]

When you walk away from an argument saying take a class, it doesn't do much for your argument. The fact I don't believe in the same ethical theory of you does nothing to strengthen your argument.

It has EVERYTHING to do with number of people believing in something, unless you're telling me there is a natural law against torture or shop lifting or any other crime. Defining a natural law is going to be very difficult for you to do. You KNEW it was ethically wrong because you were in a society which taught you it was ethically wrong. If you knew no better, then you would not believe it to be ethically wrong, which cuts directly against any notion of natural law.

Actually, it does it all. We're walking away because the answers you're seeking and we are providing could more easily be obtained in an ethics class, from people who actually get paid to waste their time answering to such nonsense. We don't. It's not that complicated.

[x togepi x]

And which of the above provides protection from torture for terrorists?

if you say terrorists are soldiers, the geneva convention sort of does. if you say terrorists are civilians engaging in illegal activity, then federal law. You can't just create a new class of people on the fly just because you want to get around the law.

[Villanova1L]

I think we got off topic and my summary would go like this.

There is no protection afforded these people under the Geneva Convention because they do not fight within its terms, so they are not subject to its protections.

They ave no protection under the United States Constitutions for obvious reasons.

The only way to give them protection is to state either:
1) We should be the "bigger man" and extend them a decency they dont extend others;
2) There is some sort of natural right to not be tortured; or
3) Torture is unethical universally.

I'd disagree with 1 because I don't feel we should be held to a higher level than our opponents. I don't believe this is the same as parents dropping to the level of their children, because we are both sophisticated individuals with an understanding of action and consequence and neither of us is intellectually superior.

I don't believe there is a natural right to be free from torture. The idea that someone has the right from birth not to be subject to torture after committing or conspiring to commit crimes is counter to the idea of natural law. Once you break the natural law you are not afforded its protections. I understand this could be seen as sinking to their level, but as I've stated I don't believe we have to stand on any sort of moral high ground.

[x togepi x]

I think we got off topic and my summary would go like this.

There is no protection afforded these people under the Geneva Convention because they do not fight within its terms, so they are not subject to its protections.

They ave no protection under the United States Constitutions for obvious reasons.

The only way to give them protection is to state either:
1) We should be the "bigger man" and extend them a decency they dont extend others;
2) There is some sort of natural right to not be tortured; or
3) Torture is unethical universally.

I'd disagree with 1 because I don't feel we should be held to a higher level than our opponents. I don't believe this is the same as parents dropping to the level of their children, because we are both sophisticated individuals with an understanding of action and consequence and neither of us is intellectually superior.

I don't believe there is a natural right to be free from torture. The idea that someone has the right from birth not to be subject to torture after committing or conspiring to commit crimes is counter to the idea of natural law. Once you break the natural law you are not afforded its protections. I understand this could be seen as sinking to their level, but as I've stated I don't believe we have to stand on any sort of moral high ground.

I like how you're using concepts like "natural law" when you don't understand them. It's really cute.

[Villanova1L]

if you say terrorists are soldiers, the geneva convention sort of does. if you say terrorists are civilians engaging in illegal activity, then federal law. You can't just create a new class of people on the fly just because you want to get around the law.

Unless I'm mistaken the memo that Yoo came to different conclusions than you on this point. Love or hate Yoo his legal knowledge is very deep and well reasoned. What if I say that terrorist fall outside of soldiers and also outside of civilians engaging in illegal activities. I would argue that I'm not creating a new class of people on the fly, but rather that law hasn't addressed this type of war and therefore new groups MUST be created. How they are defined is therefore up for debate.

Also, what federal law do they fall under as civilians (non-American)? Which law are you trying to apply?

[Villanova1L]

I like how you're using concepts like "natural law" when you don't understand them. It's really cute.

I like how you're demeaning without substance, it's precious.

[xshady121]

if you say terrorists are soldiers, the geneva convention sort of does. if you say terrorists are civilians engaging in illegal activity, then federal law. You can't just create a new class of people on the fly just because you want to get around the law.

Since they aren't soldiers, which federal laws are you talking about?

[Villanova1L]

If we operated societies based on the ambiguities and semantics which you espouse, we'd be reverting back into the stone age.
Rationality in this argument comes from my personal desire not to want my country to revert to medieval practices to gain information, the validity of which will always be in question due to the manner in which it was obtained!

So, if the terrorists captured YOU and claimed YOU were operating outside the rules of Sharia law, you'd be cool with them torturing you to make sure that they could save the lives of their cohorts in Al Qaeda? After all, you claim that there are no universal rules. You're up for it?

It isn't just ambiguity and semantics though. It is a well reasoned body of law with definitions that were chosen with very specific intent. The current combatants (regardless of actual name) create an entirely new group not imagined, and therefore me must make adjustments to our law/any governing treaty to address this new group. It's similar to any other law ambiguity and it is up to those educated in matters to create new law/definitions.

What would you like us to do with terrorist detainees if not torture them for information? What is your alternative?

If I was caught by them I'd expect nothing less. I obviously wouldn't like it, and would like to be treated better, but I don't believe they'd have any obligation to treat me differently than we treat them.

[GeeBee]

Since they aren't soldiers, which federal laws are you talking about?

The point isn't that they AREN'T soldiers, the point is that they ARE human beings. You can't trounce around the world, denouncing China, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. for their dismal human rights records, then turn around and claim you have found an "exception" by virtue of a new label for your enemies.

[Villanova1L]

The point isn't that they AREN'T soldiers, the point is that they ARE human beings. You can't trounce around the world, denouncing China, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. for their dismal human rights records, then turn around and claim you have found an "exception" by virtue of a new label for your enemies.

This speaks more to your issue with America being hypocritical. I don't believe we have any right to denounce what is happening other places, and I don't believe we should be held to a higher standard.

If the point is about them being humans then the point is one of natural rights rather than any violation of treaty or law. I find there to be no violation of natural right in torture.

[xshady121]

The point isn't that they AREN'T soldiers, the point is that they ARE human beings. You can't trounce around the world, denouncing China, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. for their dismal human rights records, then turn around and claim you have found an "exception" by virtue of a new label for your enemies.

No, that is exactly the point! You agree that President Bush and his administration should be prosecuted, correct? Well which LAWS would you like them to be tried for? Disobeying some "natural law" you would like to think we all abide by isn't criminal, and isn't punishable by the courts.

[x togepi x]

Since they aren't soldiers, which federal laws are you talking about?

the same ones that say we can't just kill illegal immigrants because they're not citizens. The supreme court has already ruled that enemy combatants are not a separate class of people but are merely criminals and therefore have to be tried through the same legal channels as everyone else.

it's called Boumediene_v._Bush.

Unless I'm mistaken the memo that Yoo came to different conclusions than you on this point. Love or hate Yoo his legal knowledge is very deep and well reasoned. What if I say that terrorist fall outside of soldiers and also outside of civilians engaging in illegal activities. I would argue that I'm not creating a new class of people on the fly, but rather that law hasn't addressed this type of war and therefore new groups MUST be created. How they are defined is therefore up for debate.

Yoo's "deep/ well reasoned" legal analysis is merely a way of justifying what Bush was already going to do. Basically every other lawyer in human rights said the dude was full of shit, but that's hardly relevant.

what's important is that your analysis here that we *need* to create new law to cover terrorists is completely wrong. We've been dealing with guerilla war/terrorism ever since the 20th century. No other president felt the need create a new class of people merely to fight this problem, only Bush did. A lot of people in the intelligence community felt that the best way to attack the threat of terrorism was to have the military treat it like a law enforcement situation when going into these countries ie: detaining them and trying them as criminals in courts of law, which gives them the same rights as any other prisoner in our legal justice system (this is where my analysis on illegal immigration comes in.)

Bush's policy mixes burdens, confuses the distinction between citizens, criminals and soldiers which in turn makes pressing the charges even harder, opening up the ability for the defense to declare the entire detainment illegal under the federal codes dealing with the proper procedure in trying a criminal. The law was very clear until Bush's cronies got involved. It already addressed terrorism before (ie: we tried people like Timothy McVeigh and people who blew up abortion clinics like common criminals very successfully), and there was a clear set of precedents in international law to deal with terrorism as well. Just because you can find a lawyer willing to obuscate the issue like Yoo did, doesn't mean his claims have legitimacy.

The fact that we had to pass the Military Commissions act of 2006 to legitimize some of Bush's policies proves that Yoo's legal analysis was completely bunk.

and on the concept of "natural law", you can't at all explain how terrorism goes against it, as "natural law" is such a vague and meaningless concept to begin with. hence me claiming you're just throwing out words that you don't understand.

[GeeBee]

It isn't just ambiguity and semantics though. It is a well reasoned body of law with definitions that were chosen with very specific intent. The current combatants (regardless of actual name) create an entirely new group not imagined, and therefore me must make adjustments to our law/any governing treaty to address this new group. It's similar to any other law ambiguity and it is up to those educated in matters to create new law/definitions.

What would you like us to do with terrorist detainees if not torture them for information? What is your alternative?

If I was caught by them I'd expect nothing less. I obviously wouldn't like it, and would like to be treated better, but I don't believe they'd have any obligation to treat me differently than we treat them.

Your first paragraph just flies in the face of the argument you've made this whole time.

I'd like us to act as if we're not the ones fighting to bring the world back to the 3rd century. It's a principle. You pay too high a price (by torturing a human being and becoming barbaric yourself) for too cheap a product (intelligence that has questionable value at best).

From Robert Baer, former CIA intelligence officer---
"Legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation. When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.
The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.
Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.
One of the ironies of the story is that even a repressive state such as Saudi Arabia has evolved its counter-terrorism policy, while the Bush Administration is still stuck on torture. On October 1, 2007, the Grand Mufti, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a decree (fatwa), which forbids Saudis from joining the jihad abroad. The mufti knows that if the Saudis don't get out of the suicide bombing business, it will come back to bite them.
If the Saudis can learn, why can't we? As long as the Administration takes its lead from Jack Bauer, we're going to continue to spend a lot of international capital for very little return."

[GeeBee]

No, that is exactly the point! You agree that President Bush and his administration should be prosecuted, correct? Well which LAWS would you like them to be tried for? Disobeying some "natural law" you would like to think we all abide by isn't criminal, and isn't punishable by the courts.

I don't even necessarily agree that they should be prosecuted. If they ARE, I'd say the Hague is a great place to start.

[Adeniz19]

t/f: torturing is a crime in the united states, no matter what the circumstance?

[x togepi x]

t/f: torturing is a crime in the united states, no matter what the circumstance?

Article Five of the UN Declaration of human rights, which is considered customary international law, says it is. The US signed it. so it is.

[Adeniz19]

Article Five of the UN Declaration of human rights, which is considered customary international law, says it is. The US signed it. so it is.
well, ok. then why are people squabbling over the fact that these people are either pows or unlawful combatants, as if it makes a difference?

torture is illegal, no matter the circumstance.

[Villanova1L]

the same ones that say we can't just kill illegal immigrants because they're not citizens. The supreme court has already ruled that enemy combatants are not a separate class of people but are merely criminals and therefore have to be tried through the same legal channels as everyone else.

it's called Boumediene_v._Bush.



Yoo's "deep/ well reasoned" legal analysis is merely a way of justifying what Bush was already going to do. Basically every other lawyer in human rights said the dude was full of shit, but that's hardly relevant.

what's important is that your analysis here that we *need* to create new law to cover terrorists is completely wrong. We've been dealing with guerilla war/terrorism ever since the 20th century. No other president felt the need create a new class of people merely to fight this problem, only Bush did. A lot of people in the intelligence community felt that the best way to attack the threat of terrorism was to have the military treat it like a law enforcement situation when going into these countries ie: detaining them and trying them as criminals in courts of law, which gives them the same rights as any other prisoner in our legal justice system (this is where my analysis on illegal immigration comes in.)

Bush's policy mixes burdens, confuses the distinction between citizens, criminals and soldiers which in turn makes pressing the charges even harder, opening up the ability for the defense to declare the entire detainment illegal under the federal codes dealing with the proper procedure in trying a criminal. The law was very clear until Bush's cronies got involved. It already addressed terrorism before (ie: we tried people like Timothy McVeigh and people who blew up abortion clinics like common criminals very successfully), and there was a clear set of precedents in international law to deal with terrorism as well. Just because you can find a lawyer willing to obuscate the issue like Yoo did, doesn't mean his claims have legitimacy.

The fact that we had to pass the Military Commissions act of 2006 to legitimize some of Bush's policies proves that Yoo's legal analysis was completely bunk.

and on the concept of "natural law", you can't at all explain how terrorism goes against it, as "natural law" is such a vague and meaningless concept to begin with. hence me claiming you're just throwing out words that you don't understand.

Easy to determine rights for domestic terrorist, given the fact they're citizens and all. The clear precedent on international law did NOT apply here, there's little question of that. Anything that was cut and dry would not be open to such wide debate.

Yoo's legal analysis was criticized for its result, not for its reasoning. Isn't this the fallacy of end justifying means that everyone here gets so upset about.

Please explain to me that if you are claiming torture is inhumane and against the rights of humans generally what "law" you'd like to apply other than a concept of natural law?

[xshady121]

well, ok. then why are people squabbling over the fact that these people are either pows or unlawful combatants, as if it makes a difference?

torture is illegal, no matter the circumstance.

False.

[Villanova1L]

t/f: torturing is a crime in the united states, no matter what the circumstance?

Doesn't take place in the United States and I'd assume the definitions under the UN don't apply the people we are torturing (or at least that'd be the argument).

[Adeniz19]

False.when is torture legal?

and if it is legal, then why was the bush administration so adamant about not calling it torture?

[Adeniz19]

Doesn't take place in the United States and I'd assume the definitions under the UN don't apply the people we are torturing (or at least that'd be the argument).
Article 5.


No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

What part of "no one" means there are exceptions?

[xshady121]

when is torture legal?

and if it is legal, then why was the bush administration so adamant about not calling it torture?


Certainly not under terms of the Geneva Convention, or applicable laws like the Constitution (when concerning US citizens and foreign nationals on US soil). However, unlawful combatants apply to neither of these.

And you know why it wasn't called torture explicitly by the Bush administration. Fancy names to make things sound better. It's a tool of politics. There is nothing wrong about that.

[x togepi x]

well, ok. then why are people squabbling over the fact that these people are either pows or unlawful combatants, as if it makes a difference?

torture is illegal, no matter the circumstance.

because the Bush policy on enemy combatants claims they aren't due these rights in this case. They're defending this position, which is horribly flawed because it flies in the face of all sorts of other laws and legal precedents.

Easy to determine rights for domestic terrorist, given the fact they're citizens and all. The clear precedent on international law did NOT apply here, there's little question of that. Anything that was cut and dry would not be open to such wide debate.

the only reason this debate is happening is because happy little statists like yourself are willing to justify human rights abuses based on flaw legal principles.

Yoo's legal analysis was criticized for its result, not for its reasoning. Isn't this the fallacy of end justifying means that everyone here gets so upset about.

Yoo's legal analysis was criticized because it blatantly ignores every other precedent in how we treat foreign citizens in regards to them breaking the law. Like i said before, the fact that we had to pass the Military Commissions act of 2006 shows that Yoo was full of shit. That law was passed in direct response to the Supreme Court saying Bush's policies were illegal.

Please explain to me that if you are claiming torture is inhumane and against the rights of humans generally what "law" you'd like to apply other than a concept of natural law?

Natural law is a meaningless concept because it can mean basically whatever you want it to mean. the fact that neither you or the person you were debating about this have never explained what "natural law" is proves my point. it's one of the most vague concepts philosophy gives us.

since i don't have the same masculine hard on for "tough justice", i don't see a need to torture the fuck out of other human beings just because they're our enemies. i've already said what law i'm wanting to apply, the ones our society created to use against criminals. If we pick up an illegal immigrant with ties to the drug trade, we can't torture the fuck out of them to get info on the drug trade. Legally, this is what we should do to suspected terrorists.

[xshady121]

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.What part of "no one" means there are exceptions?

The UN declaration of human rights is the biggest peice of idealistic garbage ever written. It carries absolutly no authority, just like the UN itself.

[x togepi x]

Certainly not under terms of the Geneva Convention, or applicable laws like the Constitution (when concerning US citizens and foreign nationals on US soil). However, unlawful combatants apply to neither of these.

And you know why it wasn't called torture explicitly by the Bush administration. Fancy names to make things sound better. It's a tool of politics. There is nothing wrong about that.

The UN declaration of human rights.


stop ignoring it.

[Adeniz19]

Certainly not under terms of the Geneva Convention, or applicable laws like the Constitution (when concerning US citizens and foreign nationals on US soil). However, unlawful combatants apply to neither of these.

And you know why it wasn't called torture explicitly by the Bush administration. Fancy names to make things sound better. It's a tool of politics. There is nothing wrong about that.You did not answer my question.

When is torture legal? What document says that it is ok to torture unlawful combatants?

[xshady121]

The UN declaration of human rights.


stop ignoring it.

Which carries absolutly zero authorative power.

[x togepi x]

Which carries absolutly zero authorative power.

except for that little part of the US legal system that says international law is domestic law.

but you'll ignore this just like you ignored my example on foreign citizens getting legal rights, as well as the supreme court case I cited so it's kind of pointless to bring this up.


.

[xshady121]

You did not answer my question.

When is torture legal? What document says that it is ok to torture unlawful combatants?

I did answer your question. Unlawful combatants do not meet the criteria for protection under any applicable laws. While there are no documents saying it is okay, there are also no documents (besides the joke of a "document" UN declaration) that say it isn't AND carry the authortative measures to enforce it.

[x togepi x]

since xshady and the other guy are epic tools that are pissing me off and the law doesn't really deal with their epic douchebaggery, i'm declaring them to not be human beings and actually "bad ap.net posters" this means we can torture the shit out of them.

i know i've made this point before, but they both ignored it.

[Adeniz19]

I did answer your question. Unlawful combatants do not meet the criteria for protection under any applicable laws. While there are no documents saying it is okay, there are also no documents (besides the joke of a "document" UN declaration) that say it isn't AND carry the authortative measures to enforce it.unlawful combatants are supposed to tried under the municipal law of their detainer. the united states doesn't torture their prisoners.

[x togepi x]

There is a convention against Torture which the United States signed. This holds the same weight as the Geneva conventions. Since the US constitution clearly states that treaties are US Law, torture is illegal.

[Lueda Alia]

This thread has made it pretty obvious that certain people don't support this action simply because of their support for the Bush administration/Republican party.

I don't think there's a point in arguing over this anymore. People will continue to be stubborn and support political parties blindly.

[Lueda Alia]

There is a convention against Torture which the United States signed. This holds the same weight as the Geneva conventions. Since the US constitution clearly states that treaties are US Law, torture is illegal.
Haha I think everyone has pretty much proven that it's illegal at this point. But you know, people block out and ignore what they don't want to hear.

[x togepi x]

This thread has made it pretty obvious that certain people don't support this action simply because of their support for the Bush administration/Republican party.

I don't think there's a point in arguing over this anymore. People will continue to be stubborn and support political parties blindly.

meh one of my big problems with the democrats is they voted for the military commissions act of 2006 as well as the PATRIOT act. You're right in that people are hating on bush when they really should be pissed at democrats too over this. Almost everyone in congress let it happen.

[xshady121]

This thread has made it pretty obvious that certain people don't support this action simply because of their support for the Bush administration/Republican party.

I don't think there's a point in arguing over this anymore. People will continue to be stubborn and support political parties blindly.

As I believe that statement is aimed at me, I would like to respond with the fact that could not be farther from the truth. I don't support Bush and I've said numerous times here that his presidency was full of fail. How he managed to swindal America into believing the Patriot act was a good idea is beyond me. Why he pushed so fervently to stop funding for Stem Cell research was ridiculous. Also, the way he lied to America purely to fuel his own revenge plot against Sadaam and further expand on the miltiary industrial complex is inexcusable.I also don't support the Republican Party as it stands now. It is a party that is going backwards, and one I refuse to donate any time or money into supporting. Now, as I said before, I believe I can support a posistion (and that is that the man did NOT break any laws, thus shouldn't be tried) without having to support the man, the administration, or the party.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't see how you can say that he didn't break any laws when people have presented facts over and over. You're just choosing to ignore the truth, which is weird if you're really not a fan of the Bush administration.

[Villanova1L]

I don't see how you can say that he didn't break any laws when people have presented facts over and over. You're just choosing to ignore the truth, which is weird if you're really not a fan of the Bush administration.

Law usually has an enforcement component, but the problem is the UN article everyone uses has no enforcement to it.

There is little/no question that the Geneva Convention by its own terms doesn't apply. There is no question the Constitution doesn't apply.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything.

[Veered]

Torture is wrong. But so is prosecuting the past administration, when they did they're best to protect us. Now everyone just stop bickering, biasing, and whining.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see how you can say that he didn't break any laws when people have presented facts over and over. You're just choosing to ignore the truth, which is weird if you're really not a fan of the Bush administration.
Because ignorance is bliss.
Law usually has an enforcement component, but the problem is the UN article everyone uses has no enforcement to it.

There is little/no question that the Geneva Convention by its own terms doesn't apply. There is no question the Constitution doesn't apply.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything.
Because the UN expects and demands the signer's enforcement. The UN is an international diplomatic body, not a law enforcement agency.

[saysmydoctor]

I mean if you guys really want to play with language, considering it's technically was a War on Terror during the Bush Administration, clearly the people we've captured would be prisoners of the war on terror. Whatever way you fucking color the language, they are POWs.

[Villanova1L]

Because ignorance is bliss.

Because the UN expects and demands the signer's enforcement. The UN is an international diplomatic body, not a law enforcement agency.

You are 100% right, which is why this isn't a law.

I'd say the UN expects the signer to enforce it in the way the signer deems necessary, which the US is doing.

[Love As Arson]

Any practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by United States officials violates international human rights standards to which the United States is a party. These include the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.1

The use of torture also violates U.S. law. In 1994, Congress passed a new federal law which specifically provides for penalties including fines and up to 20 years' imprisonment for acts of torture committed by American or other officials outside the United States. In cases where torture results in death of the victim, the sentence is life imprisonment or execution.2

"Renderings" to countries known to engage in routine torture violate article 3 of the Torture Convention, which prohibits sending an individual to another state where there are "substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."3 Such transfers, and even credible threats of such transfers, made to combatants detained in an armed conflict also violate article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which provides that "[n]o physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" (emphasis added). Indeed, if committed against persons protected by the Geneva Conventions, "torture or inhuman treatment.[or] willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," would all constitute "grave breaches" under the Geneva Conventions.4

Even if the practices alleged in the recent press reports do not constitute "torture," article 16 of the Torture Convention obliges states not to commit "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture" (emphasis added).5

When the U.S. Senate ratified this treaty, it construed this language as being consistent with U.S. domestic legal principles.6 This important international standard has been carefully interpreted by courts for the last 25 years.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm

[Villanova1L]

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm

The UN resolution is unenforceable, as already discussed.

The federal law only applies in US jurisdictions. Unless I'm mistaken the torture was not done in a US jurisdiction.

The argument is that the Geneva Convention by its terms does not apply to the detainees in question.

Footnote 6 says only in so far as it relates to the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, none of which apply to non-citizens.

[xshady121]

I mean if you guys really want to play with language, considering it's technically was a War on Terror during the Bush Administration, clearly the people we've captured would be prisoners of the war on terror. Whatever way you fucking color the language, they are POWs.

Haha you're funny. So then drug dealers that get arrested are POWs of the war on drugs?

[saysmydoctor]

Haha you're funny. So then drug dealers that get arrested are POWs of the war on drugs?
I was just playing semantics with the language. I'm glad it's funny when I do it and it's okay when you do it.
You are 100% right, which is why this isn't a law.

I'd say the UN expects the signer to enforce it in the way the signer deems necessary, which the US is doing.
Well, the Senate must approve all treaties, so by gaining the Senate's approval, we are accepting it as law.

[Villanova1L]

I was just playing semantics with the language. I'm glad it's funny when I do it and it's okay when you do it.

Well, the Senate must approve all treaties, so by gaining the Senate's approval, we are accepting it as law.

The resolution from the UN allows enforcement in the way the signer deems necessary. We, therefore, are not in breach since we're enforcing in the way we deem necessary.

[saysmydoctor]

The resolution from the UN allows enforcement in the way the signer deems necessary. We, therefore, are not in breach since we're enforcing in the way we deem necessary.
It's. US. Law. That's how the Senate works, you should take a Civics class.

[Villanova1L]

It's. US. Law. That's how the Senate works, you should take a Civics class.

I understand that it is United States law, I fully understand that.

Who enforces that US law? I'm guessing its the UNITED STATES, which means our means of enforcement are whatever we deem them to be.

[saysmydoctor]

I understand that it is United States law, I fully understand that.

Who enforces that US law? I'm guessing its the UNITED STATES, which means our means of enforcement are whatever we deem them to be.
Are you fucking serious? Is murder okay if the government chooses to not enforce its laws against it? Is rape okay if the government chooses not to enforce its laws against it?

[Adeniz19]

Are you fucking serious? Is murder okay if the government chooses to not enforce its laws against it? Is rape okay if the government chooses not to enforce its laws against it?hahaha this is seriously some richard nixon crap

[saysmydoctor]

Well, Rice did pull a page from the Nixon book by saying if the President authorizes it, it is legal. So, I'm not surprised.

[GeeBee]

I understand that it is United States law, I fully understand that.

Who enforces that US law? I'm guessing its the UNITED STATES, which means our means of enforcement are whatever we deem them to be.

Wow... That's two times in as many days that you've been advised to take classes.
Ethics, and now Civics. Perhaps you're starting to get the hint?

[saysmydoctor]

The UN resolution is unenforceable, as already discussed.

The federal law only applies in US jurisdictions. Unless I'm mistaken the torture was not done in a US jurisdiction.

The argument is that the Geneva Convention by its terms does not apply to the detainees in question.

Footnote 6 says only in so far as it relates to the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, none of which apply to non-citizens.
Guantanamo Bay is a US installation and falls under the United States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, which exercises worldwide jurisdiction.

[oldwirehands]

The number of people who said No is disturbing.

[Villanova1L]

Guantanamo Bay is a US installation and falls under the United States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, which exercises worldwide jurisdiction.

Again, unless I'm mistaken there are trials that take place from Guantanamo.

[Villanova1L]

Wow... That's two times in as many days that you've been advised to take classes.
Ethics, and now Civics. Perhaps you're starting to get the hint?

Yup and twice that I think it's incorrect. I was told to take a civics class even though I wasn't at all confused by the Senate ratifying treaties.

Thanks God I'm 2/3rds of the way done with law school.

[oldwirehands]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal

uhhhhh

[saysmydoctor]

Again, unless I'm mistaken there are trials that take place from Guantanamo.
You said it didn't happen in US jurisdiction. I'm telling you that the law--which you ignore when it's convenient to your point--states the court has worldwide jurisdiction.

[GeeBee]

Yup and twice that I think it's incorrect. I was told to take a civics class even though I wasn't at all confused by the Senate ratifying treaties.

Thanks God I'm 2/3rds of the way done with law school.

Yeah, lawyers have always been revered for their intellectual prowess. So that's a huge fail on ethics and civics for you, so apparently you're paying too much for ineffective education.

[saysmydoctor]

I find it ironic that the lawyer is clueless concerning US law.

[Villanova1L]

You said it didn't happen in US jurisdiction. I'm telling you that the law--which you ignore when it's convenient to your point--states the court has worldwide jurisdiction.

I then asked if there are trials held for those at Guantanamo, which you ignored.

People are given trials that are held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo, and therefore, are given the rights required by law.

[Villanova1L]

I find it ironic that the lawyer is clueless concerning US law.

Yup completely clueless. Guantanamo was found to be under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore they must be given trials, which they are, how is this confusing to you?

[GeeBee]

Yup and twice that I think it's incorrect. I was told to take a civics class even though I wasn't at all confused by the Senate ratifying treaties.

Thanks God I'm 2/3rds of the way done with law school.

Siq bragz btw.

[Villanova1L]

Siq bragz btw.

Thx bra

[saysmydoctor]

You said the torture didn't happen under US jurisdiction--which is wrong. Now you are citing, I'm guessing, the Military Commissions Act--which is so unconstitutional and you know that.

[Villanova1L]

You said the torture didn't happen under US jurisdiction--which is wrong. Now you are citing, I'm guessing, the Military Commissions Act--which is so unconstitutional and you know that.

I said I didn't believe it did, which was a mistake. Knowing that it does, I'm simply asking if those at Guantanamo get trials.

The fact you didn't answer the question directly makes me think they do. The MCA has been deemed unconstitutional in denying habeas corpus, which they are now given.

[boykosaurus]

Administration is quite a large group.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Administration is quite a large group.

ya it should probably be "individual members of the Bush Administration...."

thats my bad

[J.C.]

Boyko! Where you been?

[Love As Arson]

The UN resolution is unenforceable, as already discussed.
Whatever administration fails to enforce the laws, is culpable as well.



The federal law only applies in US jurisdictions. Unless I'm mistaken the torture was not done in a US jurisdiction
In 1994, Congress passed a new federal law which specifically provides for penalties including fines and up to 20 years' imprisonment for acts of torture committed by American or other officials outside the United States.


The argument is that the Geneva Convention by its terms does not apply to the detainees in question.

Footnote 6 says only in so far as it relates to the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, none of which apply to non-citizens.
In the case of Guantanamo,Justice Kennedy wrote that it is US territory and the Constitution does apply. Whether they received trials or not isn't the primary concern of the discussion, but what occurred during their time of imprisonment.

[Villanova1L]

Whatever administration fails to enforce the laws, is culpable as well.





In the case of Guantanamo,Justice Kennedy wrote that it is US territory and the Constitution does apply. Whether they received trials or not isn't the primary concern of the discussion, but what occurred during their time of imprisonment.

The thrust was completely about the availability of habeas corpus trials, which Guantanamo detainees are granted.

[Love As Arson]

I understand what Kennedy was speaking about, but the fact remains that a case can be made if, as is likely the case, torture occurred there.