13
   

Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:05 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I find it interesting that you ignored the rest of my statement and only concentrated on one line.

From your answer, we can only assume that you would allow your spouse or children to be murdered, just to preserve your "its wrong to kill" principle.


I don't have a principle that says "It's wrong to defend yourself." You are using loose terminology to try and trap me in some sort of odd situation. However, you have failed to do so.

I maintain that principles are worth dying for, if they are truly held. Now, would I break my principles to save the lives of my loved ones? Probably. But I would expect to be held accountable later on. Fear isn't an excuse to break the law.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I maintain that principles are worth dying for, if they are truly held. Now, would I break my principles to save the lives of my loved ones? Probably


So then your principles are only for when its convenient?
You admit you would throw away your principles when its to inconvenient to have them.

Thats a start.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:12 pm
@mysteryman,
But we're not talking about an individual person.

We're talking about society. And we're talking about the question whether we, as a society, should throw away our principles when convenient.


Sure, individual members of society might fall short of the standard society sets. That's why there are laws, and that's why people are brought before a court and sentenced if they have violated those laws.

The question is: should society, as a whole, accept that it's okay to torture people?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:16 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I maintain that principles are worth dying for, if they are truly held. Now, would I break my principles to save the lives of my loved ones? Probably


So then your principles are only for when its convenient?
You admit you would throw away your principles when its to inconvenient to have them.

Thats a start.


What, do you think I am some sort of superman? A guy who would sit there and watch my family get hurt, b/c I didn't want to break a principle?

Your situations are unrealistic. I would expect to be held responsible for my actions. Actually, I would be violating my principles, but not repudiating them.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Actually, I would be violating my principles, but not repudiating them.


Do you believe that the Bush admin repudiated its principles, or just violated that?

And since society and govt is made up of individual people, why do you expect the govt to be any better than people or society as a whole?
Arent you holding the govt to a standard that you yourself admit you cant live up to?
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:31 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
From your answer, we can only assume that you would allow your spouse or children to be murdered, just to preserve your "its wrong to kill" principle.


mysteryman wrote:
And since society and govt is made up of individual people, why do you expect the govt to be any better than people or society as a whole? Arent you holding the govt to a standard that you yourself admit you cant live up to?



Saddam Hussein would not allow anyone to threaten his personal security or the security of his national government. Saddam Hussein tortured his perceived enemies. The people of Iraq determined that torture was not okay, even when it was orchestrated by their former president, Saddam Hussein. Didn't a court of law find Saddma Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and order his execution? Did we not support the people of Iraq when they prosecuted their former president?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:44 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
Woiyo9 wrote:
Since these prisoners are not American citizens,
they are not entitled to any rights granted under the US Constitution.




Debra Law wrote:
Quote:

Every human being on this earth is born with the inalienable rights to life and liberty.

U 'd find it a long n tedious n probably futile process to demonstrate
that those rights are inalienable (i.e.,cannot be sold nor given away)
on a world-wide basis.
It coud be possible that some courts in some places
woud indeed enforce such contracts.



Debra Law wrote:
Quote:

The existence or nonexistence of a piece of paper called a constitution does not alter that basic fact.
It is pathetic that Woiyo9 does not know that the constitution does not GRANT rights.

That is not pathetic; it does not evoke pathos.
Very few citizens are aware that the Constitution only recognizes
and protects rights -- does not grant them; few lawyers know that.



Debra Law wrote:
Quote:

The Constitution for the United States of America outlines the framework
for the federal government that our forefathers created.
Our constitution places limitations on our government and SECURES the rights of all people
against government encroachments or deprivations.

I join the USSC
in dissenting from your posted position, counsellor.

In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER 339 US 763, (195O)
the US Supreme Court held that the US Bill of Rights did not protect German enemy aliens, as:
"Such a construction would mean that during military occupation ... enemy elements,
guerrilla fighters, and 'werewolves' could require the American Judiciary to assure them
freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, [presaging HELLER]
security against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as
well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." [emphasis added by David]

In 1990, the USSC re-visited this matter, qua whether
the Constitution protected the rights of Mexicans and found that it does NOT.
In the case of US v. VERDUGO 494 U.S. 259 (1990) the United States Supreme Court declares that
the people protected by the US Constitution are those who can vote to elect Congress.
In VERDUGO, the Court indicated that the same people are protected by the First, Second, Fourth,
Ninth and Tenth Amendments and who are members of a national community (meaning OURS).





Woiyo9 wrote:
The US Constitution does not apply to Non US Citizens.


Debra Law wrote:
Quote:

Your ignorance is greater than your arrogance.

Article VI provides: "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Quote:
Please identify the supreme law of the land that authorizes our government to encroach upon any person's right to life or liberty (which includes the individual right to bodily integrity) through torture. You will find many laws that prohibit torture, but you won't find any laws that authorize torture.

I 'll do it.
The authority derives from 2 sources:
It is the President 's authority to command the US Armed Forces,
to the extent that no American citizens are subjected to that.
This is supplemented by the power of the US Government to wage war
(which need not be declared).
I can also see a possibile argument from the treason provision;
i.e., not giving aid n comfort to the enemy,
such that information qua forthcoming attacks upon American troops
shoud not be permitted to be withheld,
again bearing in mind that aliens have no rights
under the US Constitution, unless thay are on American territory.





David
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 05:20 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Actually, I would be violating my principles, but not repudiating them.


Do you believe that the Bush admin repudiated its principles, or just violated that?


Obviously they repudiated their principles, or American ones, at the very least. They took incorrect action on numerous occasion with no good reason to do so. And worse, they are now lying and deceiving in order to attempt to escape judgment for their incorrect actions. This compounds their violations of principle.

Quote:
And since society and govt is made up of individual people, why do you expect the govt to be any better than people or society as a whole?
Arent you holding the govt to a standard that you yourself admit you cant live up to?


Not at all. See, sometimes, we as individuals or the Government as an 'individual' will make a determination that certain actions need to be done that may violate principles; but they must face responsibility for that later, on a personal level. I am attempting to hold the gov't to the same standards that I hold myself to: responsibility for actions, right or wrong.

You are the one attempting to give governments a different standard: no responsibility for wrongs. That is not a good attitude to have towards government.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 05:52 pm
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  5  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 09:31 pm
Remarks by Allied judge from the film depicting prosecution of Nazi war crimes and torture, Judgment at Nuremberg.

Quote:
Judge Haywood:
“The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime -- is guilty.

“Heir Rolfe further asserts that the defendant, Janning, was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the Government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial: If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary -- even able and extraordinary -- men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat all through the trial can ever forget them: men sterilized because of political belief; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.

“There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

“Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!


“Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.”

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjudgmentatnuremberg3.html



http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/Pogo.jpg
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 06:06 am
Bella Pelosi wants a "TRUTH COMMITTEE"????

Well let's bring it on. Maybe we can find out why she knew about our aggressive interrogation tactics before she did not know about them.

Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]

Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding " but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.

Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.

Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html


Pelosi: I didn't know about use of waterboarding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing back on GOP charges that she knew about waterboarding for years and did nothing.

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding " but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using "enhanced" interrogation techniques

"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used," she told reporters today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_I_didnt_know_about_waterboarding.html

Bring it on , Bitch!!!
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 06:30 am
@Woiyo9,
Sure, why not?
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 07:03 am
@old europe,
I agree. Then we can all find out how "everyone" knew and support the tactics employed by the CIA and we will see all the liars being exposed in the US Congress.

What is the saying? Be careful what you ask for???
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 07:11 am
@Woiyo9,
If everybody broke the law, would that mean that nobody should be prosecuted, because everybody was guilty?

See, if your opposition or support of torture depends on the party affiliation of those who were responsible for it, then you're not talking about the issue of legality or morality. Then you're only talking about partisanship.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 07:42 am
@engineer,
Woiyo9 wrote:

I agree. Then we can all find out how "everyone" knew and support the tactics employed by the CIA and we will see all the liars being exposed in the US Congress.

What is the saying? Be careful what you ask for???

I'm completely happy with what I'm asking for. I don't really care what political party is involved in torture.

Did you ever decide if it is acceptable for foreign countries to torture US servicemen and women if they believe that said servicemen might provide them information that they believe critical to their countries' defense?
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 07:52 am
Interesting interview on NPR yesterday with an Air Force expert in SERE who was sent to Iraq to head up the interrogations in progress there.

Some of his conclusions:
- The type of interrogations used are useful in getting people to say what you want or to confess to whatever you need them to confess to. Not effective for information gathering.
- The "interrogations" he witnessed were clearly punitive, not focused on getting information.
- There was a culture of harsh interrogation and when he stopped such interrogations and tried to explain correct procedures, we became disliked and on one occasion threatened.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 08:00 am
@engineer,
I'd rather they did not torture out soldiers, but as they saying goes...all's fair in love and war.

See, I am kind of old school in this regard. War sucks, been there and seen it all.

So if it is OK to bomb people, places and things, kill people in the name of "self defense", seems pretty stupid to think that torture or lack of torture sanitizes war. It does not.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 08:23 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

I'd rather they did not torture out soldiers, but as they saying goes...all's fair in love and war.

See, I am kind of old school in this regard. War sucks, been there and seen it all.

So if it is OK to bomb people, places and things, kill people in the name of "self defense", seems pretty stupid to think that torture or lack of torture sanitizes war. It does not.

Wow. I appreciate your honesty, but I can't say that I'm ok with US servicement being systematically tortured. We ask them to sacrifice their time, their families, their health and ultimately their lives in service to our country. I'm not willing to say that they have to be tortured to the point where they'll admit to any crime just to make it stop. Since I'm not willing to ok the use of torture against US servicemen, I'm not ok with the use against our prisoners. It really doesn't matter to me who's protected by a Constitution.

Historically, I would like to say the world is more in line with my view than yours, but since history is written by the winners and there is always a desire to punish the losers, perhaps our history of prosecuting war crimes reflects more of the revenge motive than a true dedication to humane behavior ... but I hope not. I'm sure if we captured a foreign operative who tortured US servicemen, he would be tried for it. I can't believe we would go with your argument that all's fair. According to your argument, that person is just another POW who fought for his country. I don't believe the US public would argree.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 11:17 am
For quite a little while now I have been thinking Obama should shed himself of Clinton's old people like Panetta who have contrary views from what Obama campaigned on. The following just confirms it for me at least anyway.

Quote:
As President Obama met with top advisers on the evening of April 15, he faced one of the sharpest policy divides of his young administration.

Five CIA directors -- including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors -- and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four "top secret" memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics.

On the other side of the issue were Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and White House counsel Gregory B. Craig, whose colleagues during the campaign recall him expressing enthusiasm for fixing U.S. detainee policy.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had said he supported the disclosures because he saw the information's release as inevitable and because the White House was willing to promise that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen sided with Gates.


More at the source

Hearing all sides I guess is a good thing, but I would think it would be better to have common idealogical views among insiders making the decisions. In any event; I hope that the side of Panetta don't win out over the side of Holder.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 02:47 pm
Read the memos:

RELEASED: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos

See also:

Torture Memos vs. Red Cross Report: Prisoners' Recollections Differ from Guidelines


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/30/2022 at 04:40:17