Torture by proxy

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

i think we should pick up random iraqis off the street and question them about terrorism. 

 

if they dont give us answers, we can torture them

 

if they still refuse, they must be working for al queda so we can kill them

That was stupid.

[Texsox]

You dont think that info gets crosschecked with what we already know?

 

According to several DOD and CIA officials testimony before Congress the information we've garnered from the interrogations ( which you say are so fruitless and full of false info ) have netted dozens of of suspects and helped roll up a significant portion of Al Quaeda.

 

 

 

I think you'll enjoy the source for the full article.

 

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/12/26/torturet.html

 

 

Dont try to lump me or anyone else in government who advocate or use aggressive interrogation techniques with Saddam Hussein.  You know where I stand on this issue.

 

BTW  I'm really glad bleeding hearts like you aren't the ones making the call on how we get information.  This is a nasty world Tex.  Flowers, a box of candy and a smile dont get it done when you're dealing with people such as these.

Nice, crosschecked with what you already know, so this is just for fun.

 

Do you even read what you type? The CIA and DOD follow US laws and do not torture. If that information is so valuable, as YOU claim, then why send prisoners off to Syria and other places to be tortured? Or are you saving that CIA and DOD officials testified that they broke US laws and tortured prisoners? Sorry I am a conservative when it comes to our laws. I believe we should respect them. But hey, to each his own. I guess the military doesn't mind breaking laws when it serves their purpose. Hell, they gave Kerry a medal for shooting a child in the back.

 

Why is torture illegal? Why does the US have to hand the innocent until proven guilty suspects to a third party?

 

And nice to know how serious you take the US Constitution. Too bad they don't make military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution instead of s***ting on it. The more I know about our military and the liars and the fake medals and awards, the less I respect them. They don't even respect the Constitution and our laws.

 

:headshake

Edited November 28, 2004 by Texsox

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nice, crosschecked with what you already know, so this is just for fun.

 

Do you even read what you type? The CIA and DOD follow US laws and do not torture. If that information is so valuable, as YOU claim, then why send prisoners off to Syria and other places to be tortured? Or are you saving that CIA and DOD officials testified that they broke US laws and tortured prisoners? Sorry I am a conservative when it comes to our laws. I believe we should respect them. But hey, to each his own. I guess the military doesn't mind breaking laws when it serves their purpose. Hell, they gave Kerry a medal for shooting a child in the back.

 

Why is torture illegal? Why does the US have to hand the innocent until proven guilty suspects to a third party?

 

And nice to know how serious you take the US Constitution. Too bad they don't make military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution instead of s***ting on it. The more I know about our military and the liars and the fake medals and awards, the less I respect them.  They don't even respect the Constitution and our laws.

 

:headshake

Here's a tip for ya smokey.

 

Innocent till proven guilty is a protection offered to U.S. citizens not people caught shooting at us on a foregin battlefield. You should save your sympathy for those who deserve it, you know, those innocent folks at home that they'd like nothing more than to see dead.

[CubKilla]

That was stupid.

What do you expect from a guy that has X-zibit in his avatar NUKE? Come on man!!!!!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Here's a tip for ya smokey. 

 

Innocent till proven guilty is a protection offered to U.S. citizens not people caught shooting at us on a foregin battlefield.  You should save your sympathy for those who deserve it, you know, those innocent folks at home that they'd like nothing more than to see dead.

I fail to see how "Saddam tortured people = Bad" to the "US tortured people = Good".

 

US courts have themselves found torture to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which bans “cruel or unusual punishment,” the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process.

 

Given a former Attorney General who was 0 for 5,000 in finding terrorists, Army reports like the Taguba report which said the Abu Ghraib like abuse was widespread (if you missed it, here's a copy http://www.counterpunch.org/taguba05052004.html) and finding out that the track record of the government in general, not even hitting the tip of the iceberg with the incompetence and lies of this administration is less than stellar in the truth telling department -- including the British media finding out that the vast majority of the people imprisoned as "terrorists" in Iraq are actually just accused of minor crimes (going someplace without their papers etc.) and NO PROOF that they are terrorists.

 

And CubKilla -- American citizens are being "preventatively detained" and sent off for torture as well...and American citizens get constitutional rights like the 8th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment. Giving the President unfettered authority to detain whom he wants without having to charge them, holding them for as long as he wants smacks of Un-Constitutionality and authoritarianism. Sorry I hold America to a little bit higher regard than pushing people around like a f***ing bully. And if we get real technical, outsourcing torture just makes Bush a liar (yet again) because after the Abu Ghraib scandal he said that the US would make sure to abide by the Convention Against Torture which it signed.

 

I mean we live in a country where power junkie assholes get off on an authoritarian bent perverting the Constitution for their own sick power grabbing ends and I for one have had it. You people are defending the government asserting people as "potential terrorists" (and we know how much the government has historically told the 100% truth) and defending their torture. I mean Hell, we export torture weapons to Saudi Arabia and other "friendly" nations -- never mind the 9/11 Commission finding out that Osama is bankrolled a lot through donations from prominent Saudi Arabians and even export torture to other nations in Latin America (Yeah, explicit manuals detailing how to torture detainees were exposed as part of the curriculum at the School of the Americas) so why not just f***ing torture the people here then if we're so goddamn peachy keen about it? Cuz we're fighting for freedom -- never mind the increased government authority to kidnap people without having to provide proof, sending them off for torture and hold them until the government feels they are no longer useful.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I fail to see how "Saddam tortured people = Bad" to the "US tortured people = Good".

 

US courts have themselves found torture to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which bans “cruel or unusual punishment,” the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process.

 

Given a former Attorney General who was 0 for 5,000 in finding terrorists, Army reports like the Taguba report which said the Abu Ghraib like abuse was widespread (if you missed it, here's a copy http://www.counterpunch.org/taguba05052004.html) and finding out that the track record of the government in general, not even hitting the tip of the iceberg with the incompetence and lies of this administration is less than stellar in the truth telling department -- including the British media finding out that the vast majority of the people imprisoned as "terrorists" in Iraq are actually just accused of minor crimes (going someplace without their papers etc.) and NO PROOF that they are terrorists. 

 

And CubKilla -- American citizens are being "preventatively detained" and sent off for torture as well...and American citizens get constitutional rights like the 8th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment.  Giving the President unfettered authority to detain whom he wants without having to charge them, holding them for as long as he wants smacks of Un-Constitutionality and authoritarianism.  Sorry I hold America to a little bit higher regard than pushing people around like a f***ing bully.  And if we get real technical, outsourcing torture just makes Bush a liar (yet again) because after the Abu Ghraib scandal he said that the US would make sure to abide by the Convention Against Torture which it signed.

 

I mean we live in a country where power junkie assholes get off on an authoritarian bent perverting the Constitution for their own sick power grabbing ends and I for one have had it.  You people are defending the government asserting people as "potential terrorists" (and we know how much the government has historically told the 100% truth) and defending their torture.  I mean Hell, we export torture weapons to Saudi Arabia and other "friendly" nations -- never mind the 9/11 Commission finding out that Osama is bankrolled a lot through donations from prominent Saudi Arabians and even export torture to other nations in Latin America (Yeah, explicit manuals detailing how to torture detainees were exposed as part of the curriculum at the School of the Americas) so why not just f***ing torture the people here then if we're so goddamn peachy keen about it?  Cuz we're fighting for freedom -- never mind the increased government authority to kidnap people without having to provide proof, sending them off for torture and hold them until the government feels they are no longer useful.

American citizens being shuttled around the globe to be tortured......Whatever. You have no evidence to back that up. Another wild claim made by the hand-wringing leftist formerly known as APU. All you can say for certain is that there are certain people who are being held as material witnesses in undisclosed locations. As usual you just assume something's true because you got your marching orders from some wacko leftist site like counterpunch.

 

As for our friends that we capture on the battlefield go, you really need to stop trying to apply constitutional rights to foregin terrorists who are apprehended on battlefields halfway around the globe. I will explain it to you one more time......slowly.......the only connection these people have to America is that they were apprehended shooting at our soldiers on the battlefield.

 

I know that it doesn't matter what these people have done just the same as it doesn't matter to any of you what American criminals are caught doing cause in your way of thinking criminal = victim victim = criminal or for our purposes here terrorist = victim, victim = terrorist.

 

Go on wringing your hands though, jump up and down, protest for the rights of terrorists.......have a good time.

[YASNY]

Don't you get it? He's not protesting for the rights of terrorists. He's speaking out for the rights of Joe Blow of Canton, OH. You see, once we (US Gov't) starts making exceptions to the rule of the Constituition, then the floodgates are opened. Citizen Blow, mentioned above, happens to be an extreme left wing liberal citizen. The Bushies could then conclude that he is trying to undermine the government and just simply say that he's a terrorist. Then he's detained for questioning in an undisclosed location and denied access to an attorney. He's also denied a speedy trial because he hasn't been charged with a crime. Yet, he's indefinitely incarcerated. It doesn't really take a large stretch of the imagination to go from where we are now to the above scenario.

[Texsox]

Rereading some of Nuke's comments, I think he and I are aiming at different targets.

 

I believe when the US has a person in custody, we should use every lawful means to extract information. Nuke mentioned that in congressional testimony, the CIA and DOD methods have been credited with gathering much critical information. Further, the US, to use a sports metaphor, has proven the courage to call a foul on ourselves when we exceed those US and International Law boundaries. Other countries do not have that courage of conviction. I agree 100% with that process.

 

I believe it is wrong for us to turn over control of a suspect to a third country because our methods are not working and we believe torture will. That is the same hollow, cheap, logic that had Clinton trying to define sex as something other than what millions of Americans would.

 

I want the US to stand above other countries. I want us to be the shining example for the rest of the world. When you sleep with pigs, you smell like a pig. Torture by proxy is a stain on all our hands.

Edited November 29, 2004 by Texsox

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke read the book "It's a Free Country." It is filled with stories of preventative detentions of "potential terrorists" (What the Hell is a potential terrorist anyway? That's quite an Orwellian term cuz damn near anybody is a potential terrorist.) with no evidence to back up the charges. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=cole -- Ashcroft 0 for 5,000 in trying to get "terrorists"

 

You may be willing to sacrifice the Constitutional republic at the altar of authoritarianism for Bush and his cronies, but I'd rather not sacrifice it for anything. By torturing people, any claims made by Bush about other nations ending torture become hollow bulls***. Plus not ending torture making him a liar again.

 

And Nuke, what the Hell are you defending if it's not the Constitution? It makes no sense to go out "promoting freedom and democracy" abroad when we don't even have it at home.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke read the book "It's a Free Country." It is filled with stories of preventative detentions of "potential terrorists" (What the Hell is a potential terrorist anyway?  That's quite an Orwellian term cuz damn near anybody is a potential terrorist.) with no evidence to back up the charges.  http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=cole -- Ashcroft 0 for 5,000 in trying to get "terrorists"

 

You may be willing to sacrifice the Constitutional republic at the altar of authoritarianism for Bush and his cronies, but I'd rather not sacrifice it for anything.  By torturing people, any claims made by Bush about other nations ending torture become hollow bulls***.  Plus not ending torture making him a liar again.

 

And Nuke, what the Hell are you defending if it's not the Constitution?  It makes no sense to go out "promoting freedom and democracy" abroad when we don't even have it at home.

Could you once.......JUST ONCE come up with some information that comes from a respectable news source and not one of your bomb throwing leftist wastes of bandwith? Any major newspaper will do, any of the big news networks websites will do. You keep on trumpeting that 0/5000 number but you got it from some looney website that is slightly to the left of Stalin. You want to argue numbers show me something regarding conviction rates from the Justice Department........oh....wait...... they're too biased for you. Never mind.

 

BTW, I'm pretty proud to protect and defend the Constitution. Forgive me if I don't care to see its protections offered to people whose only connection to America is that they were caught shooting at our soldiers and fighting for a terrorist who murdered thousands of people.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Rereading some of Nuke's comments, I think he and I are aiming at different targets.

 

I believe when the US has a person in custody, we should use every lawful means to extract information. Nuke mentioned that in congressional testimony, the CIA and DOD methods have been credited with gathering much critical information. Further, the US, to use a sports metaphor, has proven the courage to call a foul on ourselves when we exceed those US and International Law boundaries. Other countries do not have that courage of conviction. I agree 100% with that process.

 

I believe it is wrong for us to turn over control of a suspect to a third country because our methods are not working and we believe torture will. That is the same hollow, cheap, logic that had Clinton trying to define sex as something other than what millions of Americans would.

 

I want the US to stand above other countries. I want us to be the shining example for the rest of the world. When you sleep with pigs, you smell like a pig. Torture by proxy is a stain on all our hands.

I think we were as well. I am all for ensuring that U.S. citizens are provided all the due protections under our laws. Obviously I am not going to make a post saying that Jimmy Jones down the street who stuck up a liquor store should be beaten and electrocuted. APU if people detained as material witnesses were detained in an illegal fashion we both know they wouldn't still be in custody as the Supreme Court would have ruled that way.

 

My biggest beef is when people try to extend to foregin terrorists those same protections. They do not deserve it.

 

As for the torture thing I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one but bear in mind that I don't want to see it done for amusement (Abu Ghraib ) or unless as a last resort. We should retain that tool in our toolbox should it be necessary. It should be noted, also, that prisoners who co-operate with U.S. authorities are treated very well and the carrot approach has also turned out a wealth of information about our enemies.

[Rex Kickass]

So I think this argument is reaching an impasse. I have to agree with Tex when he says that torture by proxy is a stain on all our hands. And here's why. If we are fighting a war over our principles, it stands to reason that we have to be principled in war.

 

I'm sorry to say this but the "They'd do it to us" argument isn't good enough for me. If we're fighting a war to be better than them, we have to be better than them.

 

I also agree with Nuke by saying handing these folks a sandwich isn't going to fix the problem. But something tells me there's a limit we should reach and its not making our prisons seem like a hotel, which Nuke thinks the left wants to do, and its not fitting suspects with testicular electrodes like Apu thinks the right wants to do (and there is some evidence - to show that may be the case with some people in the administration). Something tells me there's a middle ground here. Something a little more extreme than a bubble bath, and a little less extreme than torture by proxy.

[CubKilla]

Could you once.......JUST ONCE come up with some information that comes from a respectable news source and not one of your bomb throwing leftist wastes of bandwith?  Any major newspaper will do,  any of the big news networks websites will do.  You keep on trumpeting that 0/5000 number but you got it from some looney website that is slightly to the left of Stalin.  You want to argue numbers show me something regarding conviction rates from the Justice Department........oh....wait...... they're too biased for you.  Never mind.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Could you once.......JUST ONCE come up with some information that comes from a respectable news source and not one of your bomb throwing leftist wastes of bandwith?  Any major newspaper will do,  any of the big news networks websites will do.  You keep on trumpeting that 0/5000 number but you got it from some looney website that is slightly to the left of Stalin.  You want to argue numbers show me something regarding conviction rates from the Justice Department........oh....wait...... they're too biased for you.  Never mind.

 

BTW, I'm pretty proud to protect and defend the Constitution.  Forgive me if I don't care to see its protections offered to people whose only connection to America is that they were caught shooting at our soldiers and fighting for a terrorist who murdered thousands of people.

Nuke, firstly it's not a "loony left site" -- The Nation is actually a fairly respect magazine in academic circles. If you actually read the article, you'd see that they did analyze the Justice Department statements.

 

And if we get technical about Justice Department conviction rates...The General Accounting Office [non-partisan investigating arm of Congress] asked by REPUBLICAN Dan Burton to investigate so many cases being labeled terrorism when they actually had some of the following examples: "An Arizona man who got drunk on a United Airlines flight from Shanghai, repeatedly rang the call button and demanded more liquor." That was considered "domestic terrorism" by the Justice Department.

 

From Sept. 30, 2001 to Sept. 30, 2002, the Justice Department maintained that 288 terrorists had been convicted in the US of their crimes. But the GAO found that at least 132 of these cases had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Because of the GAO methodology, it did not verify all of the remaining convictions but called them all "highly questionable". The deception is worse when you go to "international terrorism" deemed cases by the Justice Department. Out of 174 convictions, 131+ were not about terror at all.

 

In the first months of 2003, out of 56 cases of "terrorism", the GAO found out that over 41 were cases having nothing to do with terrorism. One prosecutor of a case said that he had no idea why the case he was handling would be considered terrorism.

 

But I guess the investigating arm of Congress is just another "leftist bomb throwing site".

 

And if we get more technical, Stalin was left in rhetoric only. His movements smack of pure rightist authoritarianism. I have a friend who is getting a master's in Russian history -- lots of fun research I got to see about documents from the US and Russian government where the policies enacted by the Soviets were quite capitalist.

 

As for your statement about the Constitution -- when the administration proves that they are actually capturing "terrorists" instead of preventative detentions with no evidence and no convictions, then I'll be on their side. If there is so much evidence that these people are terrorists, here's a novel idea -- convict them in a court instead of "We're throwing these people in a prison without counsel because we're the government and you're supposed to trust us."

 

If they have the evidence, prove it.

[Texsox]

I think we were as well.  I am all for ensuring that U.S. citizens are provided all the due protections under our laws.  Obviously I am not going to make a post saying that Jimmy Jones down the street who stuck up a liquor store should be beaten and electrocuted.  APU if people detained as material witnesses were detained in an illegal fashion we both know they wouldn't still be in custody as the Supreme Court would have ruled that way. 

 

My biggest beef is when people try to extend to foregin terrorists those same protections.  They do not deserve it.

 

As for the torture thing I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one but bear in mind that I don't want to see it done for amusement (Abu Ghraib ) or unless as a last resort.  We should retain that tool in our toolbox should it be necessary.  It should be noted, also,  that prisoners who co-operate with U.S. authorities are treated very well and the carrot approach has also turned out a wealth of information about our enemies.

Now perhaps we have different definitions of torture in mind. For the sake of this debate, I do not define torture as anything that is currently allowed by US and International laws. Torture is the kind of tactics that Saddam Hussein used, torture are the kinds of acts that current laws do not allow. Torture are the kinds of acts that the US cannot commit and that we expect for prisoners we turn over to Syria, Egypt, etc.

 

Is it your belief that these "rules of war" should be changed and methods that currently are outlawed, should be allowed? The US and International laws should allow for greater physical and psychological threats and methods?

 

The civilized world has a problem with defining terrorists. Without a trial they are accused terrorists. There aren't established protocols for dealing with accused terrorists and the old methods don't seem to fit. In our past, we could define these people as either war combatants or common criminals. Both have specific protocol for their detention and trial. It is against our beliefs as Americans to indefinitely detain someone who is innocent until proven guilty. We are placing punishment before any trial. A backwards step if you believe that US laws and procedures are the best in the world.

[FlaSoxxJim]

We are placing punishment before any trial. A backwards step if you believe that US laws and procedures are the best in the world.

The best in the world, perhaps, but they're not meant for everybody, Tex. Was it Snowball or Napolean who figured it out, "Some are more equal than others?"

 

[but, apparently we are all still animals.]

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Now perhaps we have different definitions of torture in mind. For the sake of this debate, I do not define torture as anything that is currently allowed by US and International laws. Torture is the kind of tactics that Saddam Hussein used, torture are the kinds of acts that current laws do not allow. Torture are the kinds of acts that the US cannot commit and that we expect for prisoners we turn over to Syria, Egypt, etc.

 

Is it your belief that these "rules of war" should be changed and methods that currently are outlawed, should be allowed? The US and International laws should allow for greater physical and psychological threats and methods?

 

The civilized world has a problem with defining terrorists. Without a trial they are accused terrorists. There aren't established protocols for dealing with accused terrorists and the old methods don't seem to fit. In our past, we could define these people as either war combatants or common criminals. Both have specific protocol for their detention and trial. It is against our beliefs as Americans to indefinitely detain someone who is innocent until proven guilty. We are placing punishment before any trial. A backwards step if you believe that US laws and procedures are the best in the world.

I'd love to stick around but I need a little time to think on that one and I just dont have it now. I gotta leave to catch a bus.......that takes me to the airport.....where I board a plane.......THAT BRINGS ME HOME!

 

 

hahaha

 

 

Chow for now.

[Texsox]

I'd love to stick around but I need a little time to think on that one and I just dont have it now.  I gotta leave to catch a bus.......that takes me to the airport.....where I board a plane.......THAT BRINGS ME HOME!

 

 

hahaha

 

 

Chow for now.

Be Safe

Peace