Senate approves torture for terrorists - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 05:33 PM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-28-19-09-50

Quote:

Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, but some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

Twelve Democrats sided with 53 Republicans in voting for the bill. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., in a tough re-election fight, joined 32 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent in opposing the bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was absent.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who helped draft the legislation during negotiations with the White House, said the measure would set up a system for treating detainees that the nation could be proud of. He said the goal "is to render justice to the terrorists, even though they will not render justice to us."

Democrats said the Republicans' rush to muscle the measure through Congress was aimed at giving them something to tout during the campaign, in which control of the House and Senate are at stake. Election Day is Nov. 7.

"There is no question that the rush to pass this bill - which is the product of secret negotiations with the White House - is about serving a political agenda," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Senate approval was the latest step in the remarkable journey that Bush has taken in shaping how the United States treats the terrorism suspects it has been holding, some for almost five years.

The Supreme Court nullified Bush's initial system for trying detainees in June, and earlier this month a handful of maverick GOP senators embarrassed the president by forcing him to slightly tone down his next proposal. But they struck a deal last week, and the president and congressional Republicans are now claiming the episode as a victory.

While Democrats warned the bill could open the way for abuse, Republicans said defeating the bill would put the country at risk of another terrorist attack.

"We are not conducting a law enforcement operation against a check-writing scam or trying to foil a bank heist," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We are at war against extremists who want to kill our citizens."

Approving the bill before lawmakers leave for the elections has been a top priority for Republicans. GOP leaders fought off attempts by Democrats and a lone Republican to change the bill, ensuring swift passage.

By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques.

The legislation could let Bush begin prosecuting terrorists connected to the Sept. 11 attacks just as voters head to the polls, and let Republicans use opposition by Democrats as fodder for criticizing them during the campaign.

"Some want to tie the hands of our terror fighters," said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., alluding to opponents of the bill. "They want to take away the tools we use to fight terror, to handcuff us, to hamper us in our fight to protect our families."

Democrats contended the legislation could set a dangerous precedent that might invite other countries to mistreat captured Americans. Their opposition focused on language barring detainees from going to federal court to protest their detention and treatment - a right referred to as "habeas corpus."

"The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel.

Bush went to Capitol Hill Thursday morning, urging senators to follow the House lead and approve the plan.

"The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror," he said.

That didn't stop Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., from offering an amendment that would have restored suspects' habeas corpus rights. It was rejected, 51-48.

The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture, but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

The legislation was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that Bush's plan to hold and prosecute terrorists was illegal.

Bush had determined prior to that ruling that his executive powers gave him the right to detain and prosecute enemy combatants. He declared these detainees, being held at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and in secret CIA prisons elsewhere in the world, should not be afforded Geneva Convention protections.

U.S. officials said the Supreme Court ruling threw cold water on the CIA's interrogation program, which they said had been helpful in obtaining valuable intelligence.

Bush was forced to negotiate a new trial system with Congress. For nearly two weeks the White House and rebellious Republican senators - Graham, John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia - fought publicly over whether Bush's proposed plan would give a president too much authority and curtail legal rights considered fundamental in other courts.

Under the bill, a terrorist being held at Guantanamo could be tried by military commission so long as he was afforded certain rights, such as the ability to confront evidence given to the jury and having access to defense counsel.

Those subject to commission trials would be any person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents." Proponents say this definition would not apply to U.S. citizens.

The bill would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

While I can hear the clicking figers of typed outrage from here, we can now put to rest the whole 'does the president have the power' or 'do terrorists have rights under the constition' argument.

I of course have long advocated the use of torture for terrorists, being that you can't expect people willing to turn themselves into human bombs for the gift of magic virgins from their invisible friend in the sky to give information willingly and it will save innocent lives. Being US methods are not maiming and more along the lines of discomfort I don't shed any tears or feel we left some mythical high road in light of how our enemies treat prisoners.

This is a needed tool in the war on terror, I'm just surprised so many democrats signed on but I'm willing to be that every one of them is up for re-election this year or thinking of running for the presidency in 2008.

Kadath · 09-28-2006, 05:45 PM

The thing that puts this in perspective for me is that my boss, who is a resident alien, will now be subject to detention and torture without trial. I'm proud of Specter for standing up. McCain in particular is a reprehensible coward for agreeing to this. As for the mythical high road we've abandoned, I guess Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 says it all.

roachboy · 09-28-2006, 05:57 PM

one of the few things emanating from a republican that i agree with on this latest travesty the bush administration has foisted upon us:

Quote:

Specter said hearings before his Judiciary Committee showed that the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not have an adequate way of determining whether suspects are enemy combatants.

He charged that by striking habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects, the bill "would take our civilized society back some 900 years" to a time before the Magna Carta was adopted. He said this was "unthinkable."

"What this entire controversy boils down to is whether Congress is going to legislate to deny a constitutional right which is explicit in the document of the Constitution itself and which has been applied to aliens by the Supreme Court of the United States," Specter said. If the bill passes without habeas corpus protections, it will be struck down by the high court, and "we'll be on this floor again rewriting the law," Specter predicted.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2800824_2.html

Paradise Lost · 09-28-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Democrats contended the legislation could set a dangerous precedent that might invite other countries to mistreat captured Americans.

This is the most logical statement in this entire article, followed by the Edward Kennedy quote, but I tend to lose consciousness everytime I see Ted as the voice of reason in the Senate.

Anyway, the reason we've always opposed other country's use of torture against our own is because we viewed it as a universal immoral wrong and that it should never be done, under any circumstance, ever. Now that the Courts have opened up the idea that we are allowed to do it, we can never hold the right that other countries don't have the right to torture US prisoners held by those respective countries - this would be very hypocritical, whether or not our goals are deemed more 'pure' than their's. How this be possibly any help whatsoever? Where's any kind of support that torture is doing us great good by helping us find these terrorist masterminds that concoct all sorts of grand schemes to blow up US citizens... in the US. You're also assuming that everyone we pick up must be a terrorist who's only goal is to suicide bomb something for some narrow religious view, unlike, let's say, all the terrorists who are neither of Arab descent nor Muslim.

I'd like to think that if a terrorist is willing to blow themself up, torture isn't going to do very much in the first place, also, since they're probably smart enough to realise they can just lie and we're just as likely to believe them based on past evidence. Not to mention the fact that by skirting the Geneva Convention you undermine its entire set of principles and weaken its hold on other countries to perhaps hold those same sets of principles. But no, we have to catch them thar terrorists.

Quote:

For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

This is sweet! I have a friend who visited Iraq a few weeks ago and he told me he was planning to blow up some shit, can you please convict him? He's a douchebag. I tried telling a sane Judge about this, and he kicked me in the shins. Then sent me to the snake pit, he believes I'm a communist, and since he's a judge, he's pretty reliable, right?

And in the time since posting this, I do have to say that Arlen Spector deserves much respect for also being one of the lone voices of reason on just about every controversial thing that's ended up in the Senate these past few years.

samcol · 09-28-2006, 06:10 PM

So, all Bush has to do is declare someone and enemy combatant and they can be 'dissapeared'? Seriously, it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, if they say your an enemy combatant then there's no habeas corpus.

Of course they would NEVER use it on a citizen...right? right...

I welcome our new military dictatorship.

Baraka_Guru · 09-28-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

"We are not conducting a law enforcement operation against a check-writing scam or trying to foil a bank heist," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

"Some want to tie the hands of our terror fighters," said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., alluding to opponents of the bill. "They want to take away the tools we use to fight terror, to handcuff us, to hamper us in our fight to protect our families."

Are Republican senators always this logically fallacious, or is this reduction misleading?

And as far as American interrogation techniques are concerned...
* Induced hypothermia
* Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
* Sleep deprivation
* The "attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized
* The "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage
* The "belly slap"
* Sound manipulation
* Light manipulation
Source:The Guardian

...a Wet Willy or demeaning language causes "discomfort," the above techniques are more along the lines of inhumane. It's disappointing that they're actually legislating the practice of terrorizing the terrorists. And is this before or after being proven guilty? I guess we'll have to wait until the president is finished with his signing statements.

This is yet another sign that this is not a war against terrorism.

djtestudo · 09-28-2006, 06:33 PM

This is very bad.

Ch'i · 09-28-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I of course have long advocated the use of torture for terrorists, being that you can't expect people willing to turn themselves into human bombs for the gift of magic virgins from their invisible friend in the sky to give information willingly and it will save innocent lives.

Uhg. How many times do you have to hear this? Torture is not a reliable means of extracting information. You must know this, so I am left thinking that you advocate torture as a means of vengeance, and retribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This is a needed tool in the war on terror, ...

Fight terror with terror? That's a great idea!

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 06:42 PM

Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped?

Would you condem innocent people to death so that a terrorist doesn't have to stand for too long, or have a wrinkled shirt? Not have a bright light shined in his eyes or listen to loud sounds?

We do worse to Navy Seal recruits.

Ch'i · 09-28-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped?

No, I wouldn't. How many of these terrorists being tortured have killed US families? Also, not supporting the "attention slap" means my family will die? If me or my family is killed, then those responsible should be tried, convicted, and sentenced. Torture is not just behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Would you condem innocent people to death so that a terrorist doesn't have to stand for too long, or have a wrinkled shirt? Not have a bright light shined in his eyes or listen to loud sounds?

Condem? I fail to see how not supporting torture is condeming innocent poeple to death.

Willravel · 09-28-2006, 06:57 PM

Hey Ustwo, to repeat what I've said a thousand times and what Ch'i just got through saying: torture is useless as a means of extracting reliable information. How in God's name do I know this? Well I spent 6 years studying psychology, and have a degree in it, and ALL national psychologist and psychiatrist organizations agree with me. So, to make it even more clear: torture = stupid becuase it does not bear good fruit. Torture = a waste of time and money and our national dignity. Torture = wrong, and you know it.

Toruting a terrorist (or more correctly a SUSPECTED terrorist) will never save my family. It won't save yours. It won't save anyone's.

Seaver · 09-28-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Democrats contended the legislation could set a dangerous precedent that might invite other countries to mistreat captured Americans.

Show me a war where captured American soldiers were not tortured.

Willravel · 09-28-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Show me a war where captured American soldiers were not tortured.

Explain to me when it became acceptable to sink to the level of our enemies. Will we hire terrorists to blow up buildings and make our soldiers into suicide bombers next? Maybe we should.

Ch'i · 09-28-2006, 07:09 PM

Ustwo, I wonder if you would continue your willful support of torture if it were you on the recieving end. Do you support the torture of US troops? We have no right to torture, when we abhor the idea of US citizens/soldiers being tortured. Hypocracy, of this fashion, is idiotic and contrived through vengeance.

Paradise Lost · 09-28-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped? Would you condem innocent people to death so that a terrorist doesn't have to stand for too long, or have a wrinkled shirt? Not have a bright light shined in his eyes or listen to loud sounds?

Second part first: You mean like the 10 000+ innocent civilians we have killed or have been killed through our actions in Iraq? I bet if Iraq started torturing soldiers for killing innocent civilians you'd have a problem with that.

First part second: We've fought many wars, many innocent lives have been lost on our own side on 'the enemy's' side, but in all that time, have we ever advocated the use of torture? Have we ever thought it would be an effective way to extract information from enemy troops, civilians, etc? No. What makes any of this any different? What makes you think that torture now will help bring the 'terrorists' to justice, whomever they may be? Did it somehow not help before? Would wars have be shortened or conflicts ended sooner if we used torture against them, or as punishment against us? What makes everyone so certain that we could stop a future attack on our soil if only we had torture at our disposal? And this is all assuming one wouldn't happen anyway. You seem to have the horribly disgruntled notion that torture will effectively stop any and all future terrorist attacks against our nation. Because we all know the terrorists work together, and destroying the leader will stop the minions, right? If another attack happens, what will we blame it on next? We didn't torture enough prisoners? We didn't take enough redemption on people who've done NOTHING to this country directly since the attacks?

The stupidity of torture is beyond all comprehension and logic that I can see... Tis a sad day.

Quote:

Show me a war where captured American soldiers were not tortured.

I believe I mentioned this before, but if we don't condemn the use of torture, then we have no right as a country to condemn others. Morals aren't relative. I can't kill you in cold blood and but have it okay for you to kill me in cold blood. Just as I can't torture you and be it okay for you to torture me, no matter what the circumstances or how pure our rationale is.

roachboy · 09-28-2006, 07:22 PM

something else to think about is that the french military's use of torture during the algerian war was not only ineffectual as an information gathering tool---it was a powerful mobilizing tool for the fln (who i guess would be "terrorists")---but it gets better: when reports about the extent of brutality of that torture surfaced publicly in 1957, not only did it contribute to the political crisis of the 4th republic (1958), but it also created a mass anti-war movement, providing it with the basis for a moral critique of the war and of the french presence in algeria. not only that, but the scandals created around the use of torture generated lasting political damage for the state--you can connect the conflicts the problems of torture created before 1962 directly to 1968--and it still continues to dog french politics today in a variety of ways--research the matter for yourself---this indeed was the gift that kept on giving---and in the main, people still dont really talk so much about algeria---it is a strange, touchy subject.

say the french government acted in algeria to protect families concerned about "terrorism" and to do this the army instituted a program of systematic torture, imprisonment without due process and in the end they got bad information, steadily intensifying opposition, increased casualties, mounting political costs until not only could they not protect the families they started out to, but they could barely extricate themselves at all. best of all, the political damage has never gone away.

dc_dux · 09-28-2006, 07:44 PM

The Supreme Court will have the final say.

Earlier this year, the Court declared Bush's military tribunals unconstitutional based on two arguments - it did not have Congressional authorization and it violated sections of the Geneva Conventions, of which the US is a signator.

The Court vote was 5-3, with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Suter and Kennedy in the majority.

The first hurdle has been overcome. The second still stands and without knowing the details, I dont think it will pass the test and change any of those 5 votes.

I can hear the clicking figers of typed outrage from here at the activist Court.

dksuddeth · 09-28-2006, 07:51 PM

despite all the 'what if it was your family being killed' or poo pooing the 'it's only standing too long', etc......this is just one more step in the 'slippery slope' to giving more power to a government. Some people might like to think 'the government is protecting us', but it isn't.

Quote:

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt

dc_dux · 09-28-2006, 07:58 PM

This quote is apropos as well:

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin.

djtestudo · 09-28-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped?

Would you condem innocent people to death so that a terrorist doesn't have to stand for too long, or have a wrinkled shirt? Not have a bright light shined in his eyes or listen to loud sounds?

We do worse to Navy Seal recruits.

Navy SEAL recruits volunteer for TRAINING that is designed to allow them to withstand things like...torture.

How about this:

Query: If it was your child that would be tortured upon capture by foreigners, as revenge for this policy, would you still support it?

Baraka_Guru · 09-28-2006, 08:31 PM

What complicates this issue is how Bush constantly makes references to morality, using ideas of "good" and "evil," yet there is a moral dilemma here.

Causing pain and misery is evil. This is why war is always a barbaric act, you must commit evils no matter whose side you're on. But there are varying degrees of severity, of course.

Upholding a humane standard of conduct in these affairs is a work in progress that is hundreds of years old. What the American government is doing is undermining these standards.

Causing suffering to possibly save lives is a deplorable practice. And can we please avoid resorting to the "what if it were you" "arguments"? If it were you, it doesn't change anything; it's still wrong.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-28-2006, 08:41 PM

PER CURIAM, Chief Justice Stone

Quote:

The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission.

I wonder if historical precedent will regain its stature as it once did in America.

Marvelous Marv · 09-28-2006, 08:49 PM

By sheer happenstance, very recently, I heard a former Vietnam POW, Captain Mel Moore speak (he's not the same POW I've mentioned before). He opposed torture, his reasoning being:

1. It makes us no better than them
2. It makes prisoners even more unwilling to give us any useful information. He definitely considered waterboarding to be torture. (He was subjected to their rope trick three times in his first five days, I think. It didn't make him particularly anxious to help his captors.)
3. We would get more information from terrorists by treating them more humanely.

What made things more interesting was a couple of SEALS I talked to there, who heard him but were of different opinions. Not only did they think torture was appropriate in some situations, but they said "Shit, we waterboard our OWN guys, to get them used to it."

Torture was not an unfamiliar subject to these SEALS. Other ways they were well aware of: Torture a buddy of a guy whom you'd like to talk. In view of the guy who potentially has info. At least for Americans, that can be more effective than torturing the actual potential informant.

Another nasty one: Have a female interrogate a naked male prisoner. That one makes my skin crawl. Not exactly sure why. But our SEALS occasionally do it to their trainees.

Anyway, the phrase they used was that they respected Captain Moore's opinions and his service, but they didn't agree with him.

And no, I can't give you a link.

dc_dux · 09-28-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

PER CURIAM, Chief Justice Stone
I wonder if historical precedent will regain its stature as it once did in America.

I think Stone died before the last of the Geneva Conventions were signed.

In terms of precedent, I suggest the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.

Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It doesnt give the President the authority to "clarifty" treaties.

Ch'i · 09-28-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It doesnt give the President the authority to "clarifty" treaties.

I agree. The executive branch has no authority (shouldn't now) to interpret the law. That's for the judicial system to deliberate. I remember there being a reason for keeping the executive, judicial, and legeslative branches separate.

Also, I think the president being able to chose chief justices is bullshit.

kutulu · 09-28-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped?

If you are going to boil our torture techniques down to a slap in the face than you are a liar. The CIA uses waterboarding and I'm sure they ahve done worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbo..._waterboarding

Quote:

The modern practice of waterboarding, characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique"[1], involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. Journalists Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA's waterboarding technique as follows:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess.[2]

In the United States, military personnel are taught this technique, to demonstrate how to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture. According to Salon.com, SERE instructors shared their techniques with interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.[3]

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states:

[Dr. Keller] argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.[4][5]

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual was adopted amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[6]

host · 09-29-2006, 12:00 AM

Per request....

ubertuber · 09-29-2006, 03:54 AM

^ Host, please edit the above post so that it has SOMETHING to do with the thread. The entirety of that post could have been contained within these two sentences:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot

If the POTUS was trustworthy and competent, I would object to the passing of the "Detainee" anit-"terror", bill, out of concern that a future, less ethical or credible president might abuse these new "powers". It defies credulity that congress would transfer such unmonitored and unchecked extra-constitutional discretion and detention and prosecutorial authority to officials who have such a high probability of being felons, traitors, and war criminals, themselves!

dksuddeth · 09-29-2006, 04:55 AM

does anyone have the thomas link to this bill/law?
I'd like to give it a full read.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

^ Host, please edit the above post so that it has SOMETHING to do with the thread. The entirety of that post could have been contained within these two sentences:

Come on now, I think they make a cute couple.

dc_dux · 09-29-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

does anyone have the thomas link to this bill/law?
I'd like to give it a full read.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109poOXPK::

but thomas searchs are temp files. so the link wont be active for long; go to the main thomas page and search S.3930

A relevant section is SEC. 7. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

This seems to suggest that the US has a right to ignore the Geneva Conventions but I would agree it is far more complex than that when it comes to "non traditional" POWs like we are dealing with today, as opposed to earlier wars.

Section 8 is relevant as well:

SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

(a) Implementation of Treaty Obligations-

(1) IN GENERAL- The acts enumerated in subsection (d) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this section, and in subsection (c) of this section, constitute violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibited by United States law.

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES- The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT- (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. (this is a key section, particularly the requirement.... AND to promulgate "higher standards" ..it seems to me that Bush cant interpret the Conventions to allow some prisoner treatments that are at lower standards)

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (as to non-grave breach provisions of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of the United States.

Maybe we have a constitutional lawyer at TFP who can offer a more authoritative analysis.

roachboy · 09-29-2006, 07:31 AM

an analysis of some of the problems contained in this farce of a piece of legislation--this emphasizing arlen specter's point regarding the problematic--to say the least---definition of an "enemy":

Quote:

The White House Warden
Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.
By Bruce Ackerman, BRUCE ACKERMAN is a professor of law and political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism."
September 28, 2006

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of Rights. The Korematsu case ? upholding the military detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II ? has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.

source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

dksuddeth · 09-29-2006, 08:42 AM

dc, thanks for posting those parts.

To me, it looks like the president (this or any future president) can interpret/reinterpret or define/redefine anything in any law or treaty at will and totally disregard the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the BoR at will. Nice job. who needs rights and freedoms anymore anyway?

Willravel · 09-29-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

dc, thanks for posting those parts.

To me, it looks like the president (this or any future president) can interpret/reinterpret or define/redefine anything in any law or treaty at will and totally disregard the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the BoR at will. Nice job. who needs rights and freedoms anymore anyway?

The nice thing is, we have the power to fix these laws. I strongly suggest that anyoen who thinks that the Geneva Convention being interpreted by one man who isn't even in the Judiciary is stupid, FEEL FREE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH YOU. Don't vote out of fear, vote out of mutuality and understanding.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The nice thing is, we have the power to fix these laws. I strongly suggest that anyoen who thinks that the Geneva Convention being interpreted by one man who isn't even in the Judiciary is stupid, FEEL FREE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH YOU. Don't vote out of fear, vote out of mutuality and understanding.

I always thought that non-uniformed hostile personal could be shot under the geneva convention as spies. By default that would be all terrorists.

dksuddeth · 09-29-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The nice thing is, we have the power to fix these laws. I strongly suggest that anyoen who thinks that the Geneva Convention being interpreted by one man who isn't even in the Judiciary is stupid, FEEL FREE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH YOU. Don't vote out of fear, vote out of mutuality and understanding.

Will, the Judiciary isn't omnipotent when it comes to interpreting anything. They've gotten things wrong many times. It also isn't really going to do much to change things when the judiciary is nominated and approved by the very same politicians who think this crap up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I always thought that non-uniformed hostile personal could be shot under the geneva convention as spies. By default that would be all terrorists.

nobody can just be summarily shot, including spies, unless they are currently in the act of violence themselves. Otherwise they must be given the military tribunal/due process.
your default is really doing nothing more than redefining terrorist to mean all non-uniformed combatants. Given that line of thinking, hypothetically, all of us civilians could be terrorists if the government deemed it so.

Willravel · 09-29-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Will, the Judiciary isn't omnipotent when it comes to interpreting anything. They've gotten things wrong many times. It also isn't really going to do much to change things when the judiciary is nominated and approved by the very same politicians who think this crap up.

My point exactly. Vote for the right president, avoid breaking the Geneva Conventions.

dksuddeth · 09-29-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My point exactly. Vote for the right president, avoid breaking the Geneva Conventions.

and let him rewrite the constitution. great choice.

Ustwo · 09-29-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Will, the Judiciary isn't omnipotent when it comes to interpreting anything. They've gotten things wrong many times. It also isn't really going to do much to change things when the judiciary is nominated and approved by the very same politicians who think this crap up.

nobody can just be summarily shot, including spies, unless they are currently in the act of violence themselves. Otherwise they must be given the military tribunal/due process.
your default is really doing nothing more than redefining terrorist to mean all non-uniformed combatants. Given that line of thinking, hypothetically, all of us civilians could be terrorists if the government deemed it so.

A civilian shooting at you or ploting to kill you is no longer a civilian by default

dc_dux · 09-29-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A civilian shooting at you or ploting to kill you is no longer a civilian by default

define..."in the act" of plotting.

09-28-2006, 05:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	The thing that puts this in perspective for me is that my boss, who is a resident alien, will now be subject to detention and torture without trial. I'm proud of Specter for standing up. McCain in particular is a reprehensible coward for agreeing to this. As for the mythical high road we've abandoned, I guess Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 says it all. __________________ it's quiet in here

09-28-2006, 06:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	This is very bad. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

09-28-2006, 06:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Query: If it was your family (or yourself) that would die in the next terrorist attack on the US, would you support harsh measures like the 'attention slap' or would you allow your family to die (or yourself) for a terrorists right not to be slapped? Would you condem innocent people to death so that a terrorist doesn't have to stand for too long, or have a wrinkled shirt? Not have a bright light shined in his eyes or listen to loud sounds? We do worse to Navy Seal recruits. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-28-2006, 07:09 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Ustwo, I wonder if you would continue your willful support of torture if it were you on the recieving end. Do you support the torture of US troops? We have no right to torture, when we abhor the idea of US citizens/soldiers being tortured. Hypocracy, of this fashion, is idiotic and contrived through vengeance. Last edited by Ch'i; 09-28-2006 at 07:18 PM..

09-28-2006, 07:22 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	something else to think about is that the french military's use of torture during the algerian war was not only ineffectual as an information gathering tool---it was a powerful mobilizing tool for the fln (who i guess would be "terrorists")---but it gets better: when reports about the extent of brutality of that torture surfaced publicly in 1957, not only did it contribute to the political crisis of the 4th republic (1958), but it also created a mass anti-war movement, providing it with the basis for a moral critique of the war and of the french presence in algeria. not only that, but the scandals created around the use of torture generated lasting political damage for the state--you can connect the conflicts the problems of torture created before 1962 directly to 1968--and it still continues to dog french politics today in a variety of ways--research the matter for yourself---this indeed was the gift that kept on giving---and in the main, people still dont really talk so much about algeria---it is a strange, touchy subject. say the french government acted in algeria to protect families concerned about "terrorism" and to do this the army instituted a program of systematic torture, imprisonment without due process and in the end they got bad information, steadily intensifying opposition, increased casualties, mounting political costs until not only could they not protect the families they started out to, but they could barely extricate themselves at all. best of all, the political damage has never gone away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-28-2006, 06:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	So, all Bush has to do is declare someone and enemy combatant and they can be 'dissapeared'? Seriously, it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, if they say your an enemy combatant then there's no habeas corpus. Of course they would NEVER use it on a citizen...right? right... I welcome our new military dictatorship.

09-28-2006, 06:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hey Ustwo, to repeat what I've said a thousand times and what Ch'i just got through saying: torture is useless as a means of extracting reliable information. How in God's name do I know this? Well I spent 6 years studying psychology, and have a degree in it, and ALL national psychologist and psychiatrist organizations agree with me. So, to make it even more clear: torture = stupid becuase it does not bear good fruit. Torture = a waste of time and money and our national dignity. Torture = wrong, and you know it. Toruting a terrorist (or more correctly a SUSPECTED terrorist) will never save my family. It won't save yours. It won't save anyone's.

09-28-2006, 07:44 PM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Supreme Court will have the final say. Earlier this year, the Court declared Bush's military tribunals unconstitutional based on two arguments - it did not have Congressional authorization and it violated sections of the Geneva Conventions, of which the US is a signator. The Court vote was 5-3, with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Suter and Kennedy in the majority. The first hurdle has been overcome. The second still stands and without knowing the details, I dont think it will pass the test and change any of those 5 votes. I can hear the clicking figers of typed outrage from here at the activist Court. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-28-2006, 07:58 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	This quote is apropos as well: Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-28-2006, 08:31 PM	#21 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What complicates this issue is how Bush constantly makes references to morality, using ideas of "good" and "evil," yet there is a moral dilemma here. Causing pain and misery is evil. This is why war is always a barbaric act, you must commit evils no matter whose side you're on. But there are varying degrees of severity, of course. Upholding a humane standard of conduct in these affairs is a work in progress that is hundreds of years old. What the American government is doing is undermining these standards. Causing suffering to possibly save lives is a deplorable practice. And can we please avoid resorting to the "what if it were you" "arguments"? If it were you, it doesn't change anything; it's still wrong. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-28-2006, 08:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	By sheer happenstance, very recently, I heard a former Vietnam POW, Captain Mel Moore speak (he's not the same POW I've mentioned before). He opposed torture, his reasoning being: 1. It makes us no better than them 2. It makes prisoners even more unwilling to give us any useful information. He definitely considered waterboarding to be torture. (He was subjected to their rope trick three times in his first five days, I think. It didn't make him particularly anxious to help his captors.) 3. We would get more information from terrorists by treating them more humanely. What made things more interesting was a couple of SEALS I talked to there, who heard him but were of different opinions. Not only did they think torture was appropriate in some situations, but they said "Shit, we waterboard our OWN guys, to get them used to it." Torture was not an unfamiliar subject to these SEALS. Other ways they were well aware of: Torture a buddy of a guy whom you'd like to talk. In view of the guy who potentially has info. At least for Americans, that can be more effective than torturing the actual potential informant. Another nasty one: Have a female interrogate a naked male prisoner. That one makes my skin crawl. Not exactly sure why. But our SEALS occasionally do it to their trainees. Anyway, the phrase they used was that they respected Captain Moore's opinions and his service, but they didn't agree with him. And no, I can't give you a link. __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

09-29-2006, 12:00 AM	#27 (permalink)
host Banned	Per request.... Last edited by host; 09-29-2006 at 05:45 AM..

09-29-2006, 04:55 AM	#29 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	does anyone have the thomas link to this bill/law? I'd like to give it a full read. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-29-2006, 08:42 AM	#33 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	dc, thanks for posting those parts. To me, it looks like the president (this or any future president) can interpret/reinterpret or define/redefine anything in any law or treaty at will and totally disregard the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the BoR at will. Nice job. who needs rights and freedoms anymore anyway? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."