Friday, April 17, 2009
News Morning Newsdome: Did they protest torture? Uh?
Posted by Alejandro A. Leal on Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM
- Did the teabaggers protest the "harsh interrogation" tacticts outlined in the recently released Bush-CIA memos?... Did they?...
- Meanwhile: Disappointment grows that the Obama administration refuses to prosecute CIA over alleged torture.
- It's like taking MARTA to a Tea Bagger party: Banks quit the bailout plan, while keeping other forms of federal lifelines.
- (Shameless plug, shameless: Check out Joeff Davis' amazing pics from Atlanta's very own Tea Bagger party.)
- The doors are opening: Cuban president Raul Castro says his country is ready to "discuss everything" with U.S.
- Watch them go: Slate puts together an animated time line showing where the jobs have evaporated. Spooky.
- Watch them line up to jump on the bandwagon: States to compete for high-speed rail funds... except Georgia, of course.
- Pirates of the other kind: The Pirate Bay is found GUILTY! (Nooooo...!)
- Don't despair cyber-maties: YouTube strikes deal to feature legit movie clips and TV shows in a bid to compete with Hulu.
- And this means exactly... what?... Ashton Kutcher first to surpass 1,000,000 followers on Twitter... (hello corporate strategy!).
Comments (26)
Showing 1-26 of 26
like
dislike
You support torture as a "policy"? I guess the fact that seemingly every Republican's favorite president, Ronald Reagan, signed the Convention Against Torture in 1984 doesn't mean anything to most conservatives these days.
You assume that I consider the tactics approved by Clinton, continued by Bush and approved by Obama to be torture. Have you read the "Convention Against Torture"? I have and I don't think it applies to sleep deprivation, stress positions and waterboarding.
Before anybody goes nuts, by Obama approving of this, I mean he refuses to prosecute. To me, that says "it probably isn't illegal and we probably won't win much of an advantage. Better to just let my fans bitch about it rather than prove it wasn't really torture. I can keep their support by not permitting it further."
My mistake. Are they just frat pranks to you? Yes, I have read the Convention Against Torture, as well as the Third Geneva Convention, the Red Cross report recently issued concerning how the high-value detainees were tortured, and the weak legal reasoning behind the OLC memos from 2002 and 2005. I'm also aware of how John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. I know that the methods the Bush administration had used against detainees were also used by the KGB, the Gestapo and the Khmer Rouge. You can go along with the Beltway insiders, political elite, and MSM and offer excuses and flawed reasoning as to why what happened was not torture, but you're all wrong.
Then I am wrong and I am okay with that. Funny you mention frats, because they do many things which would be considered torture under those agreements. The Geneva Conventions do not apply because the unlawful combatants are not party to the contract. Period. Details - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm Please refer to Article 4. The prisoners are specifically not covered by the Geneva Conventions becasue they do not meet the following conditions set forth; (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. John McCain does not apply to this conversation because he was specifically covered by the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war. You may have read the Geneva Conventions, but you clearly did not understand them Now, on to some relevant info. Regarding "torture" as defined by your referenced source... how do you define severe? I would like to know. Please be specific what is "severe" and what is not. I don't think these things are torture. You also make a fallacious equation between the CIA and the KGB, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge. You are connecting them to make our techniques look bad, but you don't continue with the other techniques used by those three which ARE torture. Techniques including branding, breaking bones and killing people, of both the subject and their compatriots or family. Consider, the KGB, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge ate breakfast. The CIA also ate breakfast, but that doesn't make them the same. I am glad that you are not in charge, because the THREE people we waterboarded likely gave usable information. Our comprehensive techniques have been very effective.
So, you admit you are wrong and are okay with that. Then there is no need for further discussion. Everything else you wrote are flawed justifications for torturing people.
@ JAy - Wrong, as explained in my follow up, was in quotes. That is meant to communicate that I am not wrong. Your reading comprehension deserves improvement. If you think that actually following the very agreements cited by YOU is "flawed justification", then you are correct and no further discussion. You are apparently unwilling to participate in reasonable debate because you failed to address anything I said in any manner. You just take your ball and go home. @Dead Lancelot - thanks, whether you agree with me o not, you will very rarely wonder where I stand on an issue.
Every time we torture, we legitimize the use of torture by others -- and increase the risk that our own troops will be tortured if they are captured.
after reading that article above, i gotta point out that it's 50% more, not 33 1/3%.
No, Dale, I am willing to participate in reasonable debate, but since you're the genius who admitted you were wrong I saw no further point in continuing the discussion. Don't get upset with me when you accidentally blurt out the truth.
Which part of two posts. one immediately preceding your post, pointing out that wrong was in quotes do you not understand. Obviously, I do not think that I am wrong. I am happy to be "wrong" according to your illogical application of international agreements which do not apply to the conversaton.
Concerning the Geneva Conventions, in 2006, the position espoused by you and the Bush administration was rejected by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, when it ruled that even Al Qaeda detainees are entitled to the minimum protections afforded to all detainees by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The Red Cross has stated that the high-value detainees were subjected to humiliating and abusive treatment, including forced nudity and stress positions, and waterboarding. The Red Cross concluded that the treatment "constituted torture," a finding that has legal weight because the Red Cross is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions and supervising the treatment of prisoners of war. The Bush administration also flouted the 1984 "Convention Against Torture," which states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." But since you think we did not torture anyone then I assume you also think the "Convention Against Torture" does not apply to us. Unfortunately for you, and others like you, many other nations disagree with your conclusion and the "Convention Against Torture" establishes a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on universal jurisdiction. According to that provision each state party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. I would define "severe" as in death. Like the several dozen detainees the government has acknowledged died in custody, and the multiple reports which state over 100 people have died in custody. I would define "severe" as beatings and electric shocks. I would define "severe" as drowning someone, as in waterboarding is not simulated drowning -- it is drowning. That's a beginning. I suppose you might think John McCain also doesn't apply to this conversation because he agrees that waterboarding is torture. As you are probably aware, Obama has now said he is open to the possibility of creating a commission to examine the Bush administration's handling of terrorism suspects. He also said he would leave it up to Attorney General Eric Holder to determine whether to prosecute senior officials who approved the torture tactics. And as you might not be aware, it is not actually Obama's decision to make as to whether anyone from Bush down to a low-level CIA agent is investigated and prosecuted. That responsibility lies with Holder. And even if Obama remained convinced that no one should be investigated or prosecuted, that does not mean he thinks the interrogation methods used against the detainees were legal. I don't know his true motivation for every action he takes and neither do you. But that doesn't seem to stop you from guessing and using it to support your argument. Our techniques have been very effective, huh? Is that the current talking point? Well, I'd ask you to prove it, but you can't. Maybe Dick Cheney will get his wish and we'll all be in awe as we find out what our benevolent leaders did to protect us.
The Supreme Court ruled that after teh policy was adopted and the three guys were waterboarded. The Bush Administration then complied with the new interpretation of the Geneva Convention. To my knowledge, no one was waterboarded after that decision. Corrrect me if I am wrong. Bush didn't violate the CAT because this isn't torture. The Red Cross does not carry the weight of law. If it does, the UN should be filing charges against us any day now. Hopefully, they will expel us and move to another country. Yes, detainees have died in our custody. People die all the time. Doesn't mean we killed them with torture. I agree with your definitons of severe. I don't agree withthe Red Cross. Drowning is dying from water entering the lungs. Ergo, waterboarding is not drowning, but drowning simulated for 30 to 40 seconds at a time. You can't change the definiton of drowning to suit your argument anymore than you can change the definiton of "legal" and "torture". I say a dog is a cat, but that doesn't make it a cat. John McCain has a personal opinion, not a legal one. Just like Obama. I hope you are not making the argument that the Attorney General is independent. Last I checked Holder worked for Obama and will do his bidding. There is NO chance of a "torture" prosecution without Obama's permission. I can't "prove" it worked anymore than you can prove it did nto work, but would you believe the CIA memos released by Obama? An internal Justice Depratment memo dated May 30, 2005 said that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to stopping a terror cell in Asia from a 9/11-style attack on LA, referred to as the "Second Wave". Now, if we accept the memos that make the CIA look bad, don't we also have to accept the ones that make it look good?
"Yes, detainees have died in our custody. People die all the time. Doesn’t mean we killed them with torture." another classic post from wacky ol' dalec. u crack me up.
It's nice to see you finally acknowledge that part of the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees. I know you insisted that your expert legal opinion lead you to the conclusion that they didn't apply, but fortunately the Supreme Court overruled you. Of course we always have the option of treating detainees humanely and not trying to offer the least amount of protection possible. The "policy" that was adopted, to which you refer, was the Bush administration creating a new definition of torture. Prior to that, the United States agreed with the international definition. And all the while, our State Department issued reports condemning other countries for committing some of the exact same abuses we inflicted upon the detainees. So, yes, the Bush administration complied with the law, after they changed it and got caught. Wait a second, now. If the UN expels the United States, how are we going to use their resolutions as pretext to start wars in other countries? Because aren't you the same DaleC that defended the invasion of Iraq based on UN resolutions? Or was that just a talking point to be discarded at a later date when you returned to your usual UN-hating self? Doesn't mean we killed them? I suppose things like blunt force trauma to the head, asphyxiation, and a crushed larynx sound like accidentsto you. You consider death "severe," yet you easily write off dozens of detainee deaths probably due to torture and abuse. Yes, I am making the argument that the Attorney General is independent. As a person who appears to appreciate the letter of the law, I thought you would agree with me. Do I believe the CIA memos released by Obama? What kind of question is that? You jump all over me for faulty logic and then offer up this? First, I assume you are actually referring to the memos from the Office of Legal Counsel. Yes, I "believe" they exist, but no I don't "believe" them if you mean do I agree with their legal reasoning. Do you "believe" them? And I would no more "believe" internal Justice Department memos without corroborating evidence. As someone who seems skeptical of the federal government, I'd hope you'd do the same. Now that hell has frozen over and Cheney and Republican politicians have decided it's okay for certain documents to be released (as long as it makes them look good), we'll see if the law agrees and they get their wish. I will acknowledge if we got actionable intelligence from torturing detainees. But that will not make me okay with the use of torture. Nor will I be convinced by memos that we couldn't have gotten the same information without torturing detainees.
I don't agree that they apply. I agree that the SC says we should extend that treatment to them. The SC has been wrong in the past and, I think, they are wrong on this subject. I brought up the UN resolutions when people who support the UN trot out tired old lines like "illegal" war. I don't support the UN, but they are useful in defeating arguments put forth by their supporters whcih are contrary to UN actions. I believe in the letter of the law, but I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or the "independence" of political appointees who can be removed at the whim of the President. Regarding "do you believe the memos released by Obama", I was referring to the batch of memops release by Obama a few days ago. I was merely asking if you believe them all or only the ones which support your argument. No faulty logic on my part. You should go ahead and acknowledge that we got actionable intelligence, because every high ranking intelligence pro, withthe exception of the FBI Director, have aid that we did and named specific instances. This was confirmed by Admiral Blair, Obama's highest ranking intelligence pro.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
ATLwood: Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are back for more
Atlanta may snatch "The Hunger Games" from North Carolina ... #HungerGamesBitch
-
First Slice 5/25/12: First smog alert of the year = the actual unofficial first day of summer
Plus other things that harm children
-
Weekend Arts Agenda: You are Evereman
Few openings, but lots of festivals and parties
- More »
