Waterboarding

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/feb08/130208pers.jpg

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture by Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday February 12, 2008

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

"We don't pretend to be some Western Mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world," Scalia told a BBC interviewer Tuesday, defending narrow interpretation of the reach the US Constitution gives the nine justices on the country's high court.

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

"Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to extract information that is crucial to the society?" Scalia asked.

In the BBC interview, which aired on Radio 4's Law in Action, Scalia suggested that it would be inappropriate for the court to deliberately outlaw certain tactics, such as waterboarding. (The Bush administration recently acknowledged using the simulated drowning procedure at least three times on terror detainees.) Scalia said tactics critics have described as torture could be usable in so-called "ticking time bomb" scenarios or even when such a pressing deadline does not exist.

"It may not be a bomb in LA," he said. "But it may be, where is this group [believed to be plotting an attack on the US]?"

This audio is from BBC's Radio 4, broadcast February 12, 2008.
link

I would tend to agree with Justice Scalia.

0 Replies

Blueflame
Torture is not an unknown word around the globe
but a famous word ( usa's usual language).

V Know
U (Blueflame) know.
The others are not aware of this.

Unfortunately.

0 Replies

Durbin and Whitehouse Call for Investigation on Waterboarding

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

[Washington, D.C.] -- Today Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called for the Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the role of Justice Department officials in authorizing and overseeing the use of waterboarding by the CIA.

Text of letter appears below:

February 12, 2008

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable H. Marshall Jarrett
Counsel for Professional Responsibility
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Inspector General Fine and Counsel Jarrett:

We request that you investigate the role of Justice Department officials in authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refuses to investigate the Administration's authorization and use of waterboarding. CIA Director Michael Hayden has testified that the CIA waterboarded three detainees, and Attorney General Mukasey has testified that, "There are circumstances where waterboarding is clearly unlawful." Nonetheless, the Attorney General refused Senator Durbin's request to investigate because he does "not believe such an investigation is necessary, appropriate, or legally sustainable."

Attorney General Mukasey admitted that, "the CIA sought advice from the Department of Justice, and the Department informed the CIA that [waterboarding's] use would be lawful under the circumstances and within the limits and the safeguards of the program." The Attorney General's justification for refusing to open an investigation is that, "no one who relied in good faith on the Department's past advice should be subject to criminal investigation for actions taken in reliance on that advice." However, this does not address Senator Durbin's request that "a Justice Department investigation should explore whether waterboarding was authorized and whether those who authorized it violated the law" (our emphasis).

Waterboarding has a sordid history in the annals of torture by repressive regimes, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Khmer Rouge. The United States has always repudiated waterboarding as a form of torture and prosecuted it as a war crime. The Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal, certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful. We believe it is appropriate for you to investigate the conduct of these Justice Department officials. As you know, a similar investigation is underway regarding Justice Department officials who advised the National Security Agency that its warrantless surveillance program is lawful.

To restore the faith of our intelligence professionals and the American people in the Justice Department's ability to provide accurate and honest legal advice, we request that you make your findings public.

We ask that you explore, among other things:

Did Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful perform legal work that meets applicable standards of professional responsibility and internal Justice Department policies and standards? For example, did these officials consider all relevant legal precedents, including those that appear to contradict directly their conclusion that waterboarding is lawful? Did these officials consult with government attorneys who are experts in the relevant legal standards, e.g. Judge Advocates General who are experts in the Geneva Conventions? Was it reasonable to rely on standards found in areas such as health care reimbursement law in evaluating interrogation techniques?
Were Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful insulated from outside pressure to reach a particular conclusion? What role did White House and/or CIA officials play in deliberations about the lawfulness of waterboarding?
We agree with Attorney General Mukasey that our intelligence professionals should be able to rely in good faith on the Justice Department's legal advice. However, if CIA agents or contractors have been put in jeopardy by misguided counsel from the Justice Department, including legal opinions that the Administration has been forced to repudiate, and as a result they risk war crimes prosecution overseas, this is a serious matter. It also places CIA agents at risk of receiving similarly flawed advice in the future. Moreover, the Justice Department's continued refusal to repudiate waterboarding does tremendous damage to America's values and image in the world and places Americans at risk of being subjected to waterboarding by enemy forces. We believe it merits investigation to determine if these grievous results were the product of legal theories violating the Department's professional standards, or improper influence violating the Department's standards for independent legal advice.

We respectfully request that you inform us whether you plan to initiate a review as soon as possible, and no later than February 19, 2008. We also request that you inform us whether the results of your review will be provided to Congress and made public. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
U.S. Senator

Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator

0 Replies

Lieberman stumps for waterboarding; 'It's not like burning people with hot coals' link

0 Replies

A befitting response Blueflame.
My regards without regrets

0 Replies

Quote:

Army Official: Yes, Waterboarding Breaks International Law
By Paul Kiel - February 27, 2008, 2:16PM
With the parade of administration officials who've testified about waterboarding in the past several weeks -- that it was once legal, but is not anymore (though it could be found legal again); that it may "feel like" torture, but that doesn't mean it is torture; that as the U.S. practices it, it bears no relation to the technique used by the Spanish Inquisition (it's more in line with the Khmer Rouge way of doing things) -- you can be excused for feeling more than a little confused.

And you may have despaired of ever seeing a clear, unequivocal exchange on the topic with a government official. Like this one from today's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, with Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/army_official_yes_waterboardin.php

0 Replies

Quote:

Controversial Pentagon Official Resigns
By Paul Kiel - February 25, 2008, 6:47PM
Last week, Col. Morris Davis, the former prosecutor told reporters that he'd had a conversation with the Pentagon's general counsel William Haynes, during which Haynes had said about the Gitmo tribunals that "We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions."

It made Haynes, already a controversial figure because of his role crafting the Pentagon's interrogation policies, even more controversial. Davis said that he resigned when he was put under Haynes' chain of command.

And now Haynes is gone.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/controversial_pentagon_officia.php

0 Replies

OK

Blatham's beloved, blueflame's beloved, JTT's beloved, Advocate's beloved...

All the beloveds are either of incredible significance or probabilty, but they find themselves sitting in an warehouse in Brooklyn, atop a pocket nuke.

The Feds catch a wayward A-rab who they believe has something to do with the pocket nuke that threatens to kill, literally, millions.

Since the timing mechanism is based on hours, not days, the notion that interrogating experts might be of effect is pretty stupid. Everyone involved agrees that if the nuke is ging to blow witin hours then all of the non-invasive interrogation technics are useless.

Hey, it's totally unacceptible to torture one of these bastards --- no matter what.

So the nuke goes off and millions die.

But so do your beloveds.

Do you really expect us to believe that you would prefer to see your husband or wife rendered into quarks than to simulate the drowning of the suspect that our government believes has planted the nuke?

I have no doubt that you would have little problem with the annihilation of millions of strangers rather than torturing a foe, but how about when your Old Lady is living in downtown Manhattan?

If you can imagine torturing your beloved's captives then you are, at least, capable of discussing the issue.

0 Replies

The fact that Liberals are in a tizzy concerning 'waterboarding' when America's enemies fly airplanes of civilians into skyscrapers and practice the beheading of captive journalists, is reason enough not to trust a Liberal with leading this country.

Don't look for liberals like 'Present' Obama to have the spine to deal with terrorists. Ain't gonna happen.

He doesn't want to be unpopular.

0 Replies

Finn - I know you THINK a ticking bomb scenario outlines your reasons for supporting torture, but consider this precious.

Let's revisit the "A-rab" you referred to. Why is he or she planting a bomb? If the US plans to bomb a particular site and a US soldier is captured before hand. The soldier is tortured for info. The soldier gives out the info, but later dies from the torture. The "A-rabs" who torture him are later captured. Would you put them on trial? If they testified that their actions were justified because they were effective, would you agree?

Let's revisit how the pocket nuke got into the country. Maybe you aren't aware, but getting a nuke across our border would be harder than stealing the statue of liberty. Why does keeping our country safe mean destroying what our country is? Is torture the only way to keep our country safe? Why aren't we gathering our information elsewhere? Why are we reacting retroactively?

GWB declared war on terrorism. This is a fight that is never over, and further it's a fight that didn't begin when he said it. Creating a cute euphemism isn't a justification for this kind of unforgivable behavior.

It's cowardice.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The fact that Liberals are in a tizzy concerning 'waterboarding' when America's enemies fly airplanes of civilians into skyscrapers and practice the beheading of captive journalists, is reason enough not to trust a Liberal with leading this country.

Don't look for liberals like 'Present' Obama to have the spine to deal with terrorists. Ain't gonna happen.

He doesn't want to be unpopular.

Yeah. Republicans handle terrorists great. Like when GWB was given a report outlining how terrorists were planning to use a planes to make attacks on US soil prior to 9/11. Yeah, Conservatives are great at dealing with terrorists. Nobody had more experiance than Cheney or Rumsfield. Alot of good that did us.

If liberals lack the spine, republicans lack the brains.

Christopher Reeves still functioned without a spine, how many people function without a brain?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Jamie Gorelick hamstrung the agencies that could have co-operated and shared info with one another to put the pieces of terrorist plots and conspiracies together ahead of time.

Lessee, who did she work for?

Do you seriously see 'Present' Obama making any tough choices and taking the heat if things don't go as well as planned?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you seriously see 'Present' Obama making any tough choices and taking the heat if things don't go as well as planned?

When it comes to taking the heat, GWB set the bar so low, even if Obama makes a mistake, and then acknowledges a problem, it will be a national improvement.

As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

For one who disclaims "faith," you must have an awful lot to place any confidence whatsoever in this untried, untested, and inexperienced individual.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

For one who disclaims "faith," you must have an awful lot to place any confidence whatsoever in this untried, untested, and inexperienced individual.

He is none of those things. But he is going to beat McCain this fall. And that worries you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

For one who disclaims "faith," you must have an awful lot to place any confidence whatsoever in this untried, untested, and inexperienced individual.

He is none of those things. But he is going to beat McCain this fall. And that worries you.

Cycloptichorn

He's every one of those things ... every last one of them.

And that's what worries you.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

For one who disclaims "faith," you must have an awful lot to place any confidence whatsoever in this untried, untested, and inexperienced individual.

He is none of those things. But he is going to beat McCain this fall. And that worries you.

Cycloptichorn

He's every one of those things ... every last one of them.

And that's what worries you.

Ya know, Tico - in all actuality you guys have a lot more to worry about than Obama supporters do., I mean, we know what to expect with McCain - he's going to keep the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush stance on Iraq. No offense, but one more good ole All American white guy in a line of 43 other good ole etc.

But if Obama wins, OH MY GOD it's like the end of an era, or at least I'm sure it seems to some to be. It's a sure sign that people aren't as interested in keeping things to the same ole status quo that you have thrived in.

If McCain wins, we will sigh a very heavy sigh and settle in for more of the same. If Obama wins, though you probably won't admit it, it's gonna cause one hell of a mass, prolonged anxiety attack.

One of the many reasons I'm hoping he gets in.

0 Replies

I've posted this elsewhere, but it ought to be here as well

Quote:

How Good People Turn Evil, From Stanford to Abu Ghraib
By Kim Zetter 02.28.08 | 12:00 AM
As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard, Philip Zimbardo had access to many images (NSFW) of abuse taken by the guards. His TED presentation puts together a short video of some of the unpublished photos, with sound effects added by Zimbardo. Many of the images are explicit and gruesome, depicting nudity, degradation, simulated sex acts and guards posing with corpses. Viewer discretion is advised.

MONTEREY, California -- Psychologist Philip Zimbardo has seen good people turn evil, and he thinks he knows why.

Zimbardo will speak Thursday afternoon at the TED conference, where he plans to illustrate his points by showing a three-minute video, obtained by Wired.com, that features many previously unseen photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (disturbing content).

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/ted_zimbardo

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
As for hard choices. Yes, he has my confidence.

For one who disclaims "faith," you must have an awful lot to place any confidence whatsoever in this untried, untested, and inexperienced individual.

He is none of those things. But he is going to beat McCain this fall. And that worries you.

Cycloptichorn

He's every one of those things ... every last one of them.

And that's what worries you.

For someone who likes to insult my age, you certainly aren't very well versed on Obama's "experience."

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included

1. Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. 2007 Government Ethics Bill, became law,
5. Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the State/U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Obama isn't just a talker, he works too, and he works fast and efficiently.

And must I remind the readers that there was nobody who had more "experience" than Cheney or Rumsfield. It didn't mean **** when it came down to it.

You're just precious Tico.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know