Bush Memo Allowing Torture Surfaces

[EvilJester99]

Mr. Jester-

 

1. Per the rules of the forum, please read and reply to the MUST READ thread pinned at the top before posting in here. Thanks!

 

2. I can't tell if that last statements is supposed to be in green. Do you actually think that was the primary motivation for war? Or are you saying others do?

Yes the last part was sarcasm . I will read it thanks for the reminder. Also ignore my stupidity on the last line...I was thinking of a poster from a different site that came up with that arguement for why GWB started the Iraq war. So many boards and not enough brain cells for me lol.

Edited April 14, 2008 by EvilJester99

[Texsox]

As if they are not applying those techniques on our soldiers as it is already... oh wait they just behead them...that makes the difference eh? So would rather we sit them down with tea and donuts maybe and ask them nicely for the info? I am sure that would gain us all the info we need. Hussein was murdering people by the thousands...but the true reason we went after him was not for that reason. GWB wanted to get him because his daddy missed his chance to get him.

 

We cannot simultaneously try to stop torture, using it for reasons for invading a country, and embrace it's use. As noted above, people will say ANYTHING to stop the torture, including making up lies.

 

Based on your post, it seems you believe the only two choices are torture or tea and donuts. So we have exhausted the topic. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[BearSox]

how about this... Imagine what the world would be like if Jack Bauer could not torture suspects. We'd all probably be dead now

Edited April 14, 2008 by BearSox

[Texsox]

It is easy to say that we should do anything if it saves one American life, but it is never that easy. For example, it is widely believed and accepted, that you never negotiate with terrorists. Yet, that may save one life, but cost many times that many down the road. If I saw some evidence that torture is an effective tool, I'd reconsider. But in dealing with terrorists and criminals, I believe taking the moral high ground is better. Sinking to the level of a terrorist, it not what this country is about. Sucks we have to play by rules that our enemies are not, but if we play by their rules, we lost any moral argument and are no better then them.

 

And while I understand and see some humor in the above post, it is actually a great point. Our opinions and shaded by TV and movie plots where a suspect is pushed or tortured and gives up that vital piece of information and lives are saved. TV is not reality, the truth is far murkier than that.

[lostfan]

Negotiation is an interrogation technique in and of itself. So is "tea and donuts" actually. If that's what works, and that's getting you information, you do it. Even if it means buddying up to the terrorist and playing Xbox 360 with him.

[southsider2k5]

I always ask this question when this topic comes up, and usually no one answers it directly...

 

Would you understand your family/friends/children dying in a case where the US has a suspect who later turned out to have had information on a pending attack (and the US government believed they did before the attack), whom they didn't torture at all because they followed the Geneva conventions to the letter of the law?

[NorthSideSox72]

I always ask this question when this topic comes up, and usually no one answers it directly...

 

Would you understand your family/friends/children dying in a case where the US has a suspect who later turned out to have had information on a pending attack (and the US government believed they did before the attack), whom they didn't torture at all because they followed the Geneva conventions to the letter of the law?

Well, that situation would be so incredibly rare - let's establish that first. But this is really the same question as, what if your loved one was kidnapped in Iraq and the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists? Obviously in either scenario, if you are actually in it, you have a different perspective. But in both cases, I'd suggest, following the harder path is better for the country as a whole.

 

[Texsox]

I always ask this question when this topic comes up, and usually no one answers it directly...

 

Would you understand your family/friends/children dying in a case where the US has a suspect who later turned out to have had information on a pending attack (and the US government believed they did before the attack), whom they didn't torture at all because they followed the Geneva conventions to the letter of the law?

 

Understand? Yes

Like it? Not in a million years.

 

What I could not understand is the hatred in that terrorist's heart that motivates them to do what they do. I would loath and probably hate that terrorist. I would also probably find it impossible to forgive that person. It would be doubly sad to me if I thought my country, in response, adopted hatred, and those same terrorist values. Once we join the ranks of terrorists, the original terrorists have won.

 

And we really do not want to go down Hypothetical Lane. We are all intelligent enough here to create scenarios that prove a point.

[StrangeSox]

I always ask this question when this topic comes up, and usually no one answers it directly...

 

Would you understand your family/friends/children dying in a case where the US has a suspect who later turned out to have had information on a pending attack (and the US government believed they did before the attack), whom they didn't torture at all because they followed the Geneva conventions to the letter of the law?

 

This argument basically boils down to "would you let emotional circumstances impact rational judgment, and should the actions of the US be based on emotional circumstances?"

[bmags]

per the uber-awesome magazine mother jones in their torture issue in march:

 

Editors' Note

 

By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery

February 22, 2008

 

what is america? It is a chunk of land; it is a racial and cultural kaleidoscope; it is a market. But more important and essential than any of these definitions, and the basis for them all, America is a legal and moral framework. It is the expression of those self-evident rights of man that Jefferson wrote about in 1776, and the fitful strides toward real equality we've been making ever since. And central to our rather arrogant notion of American exceptionalism has always been that our journey toward justice for all is not just America's journey, but a path for the rest of the world to follow.

 

So what example are we setting for the world, and for Americans coming of age in this time of terror and torture? In many respects we have devolved to a pre-Enlightenment state. Take waterboarding, a practice recognized as torture since the time of Torquemada and, as such, banned in most European countries by the early 1800s. An American officer, Major Edwin Glenn, was court-martialed and punished for using the method on a Filipino "insurgent" during the SpanishAmerican War. The practice was officially banned by the U.S. Army after World War II, because of pow protections spelled out in the Geneva Conventions, but also because Allied soldiers had been subjected to waterboarding by German and Japanese soldiers—several of whom were sentenced to decades of hard labor, and even life, by war-crimes tribunals. This prohibition did not mean that Americans never used waterboarding: In 1968, the Washington Post published a front-page photo showing a GI holding down a North Vietnamese prisoner as South Vietnamese soldiers waterboarded him. But the soldier was immediately drummed out of the Army. And when Texas sheriff James "Humpy" Parker and three of his deputies repeatedly used the technique on accused thieves—some of whom gave false confessions to escape further abuse—the federal government investigated, a jury of a dozen Texans voted to convict, and in 1983 the men were sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

 

The point is that while torture still happened, when incidents became public, they were condemned, not condoned. But not only has the Bush administration stridently defended the use of "harsh interrogation techniques," the American public has signed off on such euphemisms. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, pundits predicted it might mean an end to the war, or, at the very least, a national conversation on just how far America was willing to depart from its core values to fight terrorism. Yet, four years after the photos of naked, debased detainees first emerged, the debate over torture has dissipated. The highest-ranking officer charged in the scandal got off with a slap on the wrist in August, but you could be forgiven for not knowing—we were the only publication to send a reporter to cover the full court-martial ("The Final Act of Abu Ghraib"). There are three federal investigations into the cia's destruction of videotapes of agents waterboarding Al Qaeda travel agent Abu Zubaydah—but none into waterboarding itself. When it was revealed that administration officials and congressional leaders of both parties knew all along that waterboarding was being used on prisoners, the nation let out a collective yawn. The only criminal investigation into the cia's extraordinary rendition program has come courtesy of an Italian prosecutor ("The Body Snatchers"). Each week, Fox's 24 codifies the ticking-time-bomb justification for torture, while its reality TV show Solitary ("Voluntary Confinement") pits isolated contestants against each other to see who can withstand the most torment. And then there are the other assaults being perpetrated against the Constitution. These days American citizens are being entrapped into participating in fake plots and locked up for simply thinking anti-American thoughts ("Department of Pre-Crime").

 

What does our ambivalence toward our founding legal values mean in the long term? Social scientists note that most people—not just "a few bad apples"—are capable of committing torture. That they do so when encouraged by authority figures and joined by their peers, when the victims are dehumanized and the group's inhibitions fall away. Once such cruelty is deemed acceptable under exceptional circumstances, its use often becomes institutionalized: The exception becomes the norm. The only remedy is true accountability, a real reckoning with what was allowed to happen and how we can get our moral compass back. We owe that much to soldiers like Ben Allbright, who's caught between a community that hails him like a hero and the torment he feels over the abuse he doled out in Iraq ("Am I a Torturer?" ).

 

If we allow fear itself to rule, if we justify methods used by Spanish Inquisitors and roll back legal protections enshrined as far back as the 13th century, we lose everything we claim to be fighting so hard to protect. That's why we must be vigilant against the creep of torture. Not just because it produces questionable results. Not just because condoning its use might increase the odds that it will be used on our own soldiers and citizens. But simply because it is un-American.

Edited April 24, 2008 by bmags