home

In 2006, Newsweek Reported Torture Does Not Work

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:40:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The enterprise known as Newsweek magazine dedicated its cover story this week to apologizing and advocating for torture. I have covered this issue here, here and here. The Newsweek article, authored by Stuart Taylor, Jr and Evan Thomas, states:

It is a liberal shibboleth that torture doesn't work—that suspects will say anything, including lies, to stop the pain. But the reality is perhaps less clear.

Yet Newsweek reporting, by EVAN THOMAS no less, came to a different conclusion in 2006:

Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.

More . . .

I wonder if "most intelligence experts" are "liberals." In any event, an entity that claims to be a journalistic enterprise might want to consider its own previous reporting on a subject when engaged in later reporting. What explanation can Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas himself provide for this blatant instance of journalistic malpractice?

Speaking for me only

< Bush Administration Official Admits Detainee Was Tortured | No Suppression For Search Following Arrest on Withdrawn Warrant >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In 2006, Newsweek Reported Torture Does Not Work | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's a shocking article ... (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    full of unsubstantiated claims, and bizarre assertions.  The most shocking is the one you quote:

    It is a liberal shibboleth that torture doesn't work--that suspects will say anything, including lies, to stop the pain. But the reality is perhaps less clear.

    The statement is not only shocking in and of itself.  But, amazingly, they do not follow this statement with any supporting evidence.

    None.  Nada.  Zero.  Zilch.

    This seems to be at the root of it all:

    The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did it--flaunting executive power, ignoring Congress, showing scorn for anyone who waved the banner of civil liberties.

    Amazing.  What is Newsweek doing?  Are they seriously arguing that the Bush-Cheney mistake was one of public relations?  Sure sounds like it.

    And the insanity just continues:

    Last summer, the U.S. Senate (with Obama absent) voted to require the CIA to use no interrogation methods other than those permitted in the Army Field Manual. These are extremely restrictive: strictly speaking, the interrogator cannot ever threaten bodily harm or even put a prisoner on cold rations until he talks. Bush vetoed this measure, not unwisely.

    Not unwisely?

    I sure hope Obama isn't listening to anyone who holds these views.  And I hope Newsweek gets a lot of angry response from their readership both for their views, and extremely shoddy journalism which supports them.

    I totally don't get that (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    if the Army Field Manual is so terribly restrictive that it prevents us from getting good information... why the heck does the Army use it?  Is the United States Military comprised of wussy liberals or something?

    Parent
    The field manual (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:41:23 AM EST

    IIRC, the field manual is written for the treatment of prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions.  Such prisoners are only required to give name, rank, and serial number.  You are not even allowed to offer better food, a larger cell, or nicer clothing in exchange for information.

    As it is published it would provide value to AQ in training to resist interrogation.   AQ should be left uncertain as to what interrogation methods we may use.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    I believe there is currently a classified section of that particular Army Field Manual.  Certainly the decision of whether to publish the manual in full is entirely voluntary.

    I would note that the original amendment to limit civilian interrogations to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual was introduced by John McCain.  Presumably he's not entirely clueless about these matters.

    Parent

    Geneva Conventions (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    The  Geneva Conventions cover irregulars out of uniform - AQ.  Your comment is a non-sequiter.

    IIRC, the  Geneva Conventions were amended in 1948 to cover irregulars out of uniform like the French resistance.

    Parent

    The GC I read was adopted in 1949 (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    so it would include your claim. It says:

     Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    Let us see....

    a. Well, yeah. We do hold the bosses responsible..

    b. That's kinda tough. Would that be a UAL or AA logo?? PanAm??

    c. Flying airplanes into buildings... yeah that's carrying arms openly...

    d. Yep, blowing up cars in marketplaces... that's pretty normal when al-Qaida us around.... Hamas in Israel...

    (sarcasm alert)

    Parent

    We were talking about gitmo detainees (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:04:07 PM EST
    not 9-11 hijakcers. You do understand the difference. In any event, what's wrong with an Article 5 hearing to determine their status?

    Parent
    That dog won't hunt. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    You assume doubt.

    The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    Their failure under Article 4 is so massive that there is no doubt.

    4.2.a. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



    Parent
    You assume there is no doubt (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:11:32 PM EST
    You assume there is no doubt about any   detainee, maybe you missed this posting by T. Christopher Kelly:

    If the Guantanamo detainees are really "the worst of the worst," as the administration has assured us, why was Jaralla al-Marri detained for seven years only to be released with no showing of wrongdoing whatsoever?

    Or this

    A federal district judge, Richard Leon, today ordered the Bush administration "forthwith" to release five Algerian detainees who have been held in Guantanamo without charges since January, 2002 -- almost seven full years.   The decision was based on the court's finding that there was no credible evidence that the 5 detainees intended to take up arms against the U.S.  The court found sufficient evidence to justify the ongoing detention of a sixth Algerian detainee.

    Or this today

    A 21-year-old citizen of Chad who has been held for seven years at the US military jail at Guantánamo Bay must be released, a federal judge in Washington DC ruled last night.

    US District Judge Richard Leon said the government had not proven that Mohamed el Gharani was an enemy combatant and said the detainee, who was 14 when he arrived at Guantánamo, must be released and sent home soon.

    Re-read the operative phrases in all of these links:
    "No showing of wrong doing"
    "No credible evidence"
    "Not proven"

    Doubt is clearly at issue. Your problem is George Bush fooled you once with the idea he won Florida, twice with WMD, three times with Mission Accomplished, and on and on and yet you still believe him.

    When it comes to Bush, you must always be singing reason to believe

    Parent

    I have not seen (2.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    any of the evidence so I have no reason to believe that the Judge knows what he/she talking about. Has any been suppressed...etc. etc.

    Bottom line.

    You can't use normal full up CJ rules.

    Sorry if that bothers you, but you are a defense attorney. I'm not.

    In addition, the question was about determining if they should be treated as POW's. Now you want to reframe the discussion into if they are unlawful combatants.

    Parent

    Squirming? (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    I suggested a hearing  should be held to determine their status. I haven't reframed anything. You, on the other hand, are squirming.

    There is nothing to suggest any evidence had been suppresed. NADA.  ZIP.

    I have observed before you are a monarchist. If Bush says they are guilty, they must be guilty, according to you, for the king can do no wrong. Notwithstanding the number of times Bush administration has fooled you, you still believe him.  

    In my lifetime I have been a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I have no problem with either role, provided the players play fairly. You are a persecutor and can only see the side of the prosecution. Its a bad trait to only be able to see one side.  

    Parent

    Everytime (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    I try to be nice and polite I find my time is wasted.

    I showed you that your assumption was wrong.

    Now prove they meet Article 4. You can't.

    So just keep on assuming.

    What a waste of time you are.

    Parent

    Hmm,, you must never waste your (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:34:16 AM EST
    time then. I have never read a single polite reply from you.

    Parent
    No evidence to hold them (none / 0) (#108)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:47:45 AM EST
    If there was no evidence to hold them as the judge ruled, then there clearly was no evidence to show they qualify as a POW under Article 4 A  1 -6 or 4 B 1 or B 2.

    You assume because they are held at Guantánamo they automatically are a POW under article 4.

    Here are some facts for you:

    Fewer than 10 percent were captured by the United States. The remainder were turned over to the United States, most at a time when the U.S. military was  dropping bounty flyers promising "wealth and power beyond your dreams" during the chaos of wartime Afghanistan and Pakistan when people were fleeing the U.S. invasion. Others were picked up as far afield as Bosnia and the Gambia. In the seven years of the prison's existence, fewer than 5 percent have ever been charged.

    Were all of these people actually combatants? There were something like 780 prisoners.  Less than 10% means less than 78, were captured by the US. No Article 5 hearing is needed according to Jim to determine status on the other 90% plus.

    YOU could be at held Guantánamo, if you happened to be captured by the ISI. They could have claimed you were caught fleeing Afghanistan with OBL, and  that he got away after heaving fighting and that you helped him escape by keeping the ISI at bay until your ammo ran out, while OBL fled.

    Bush give us our reward please, we turned this American Taliban,  Jimakappj, over to you, just like you asked. No its absolutely he true. He fought like a Bengal Tiger as long as he had ammo, we couldn't get past him or we would surely have had OBL for you. Reward please. He also confessed after we interrogated him and signed a statement in his own handwriting. Bruises? What bruises? Oh you mean those bruises. After he ran out of ammo he fought with his fists and we had to subdue him. It is nothing. Reward please.

    No hearing required according to you. But at least you are being kept in a clean cell according to Deadeye Dick Cheney.

    Again you are a monarchist. The king can do no wrong and can lock you up on royal authority for as long as his majesty wants. You would think that you would have learned by now when Cheney and Bush tell you its raining, you know it is dry out. If they tell you it is snowing, you know you can go swiminning. Yet you still find a reason, to ... believe.

    Parent

    Molly does her thing. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    Ole Frame and Reframe Molly...

    We started talking about the prisoners not meeting POW quals per the GC.

    You brought up 1948 changes. I showed how they didn't apply.

    You brought up Article 5. I showed how it didn't apply.

    You then want to start talking about an Article 5 hearing....

    I note I have no information on what the judge did or did not have.

    You snark. (Okay, an occasional  snark is good for he soul.)

    I note that all the prisoners have had hearings and provide a link. I note that quite a few of those released have returned to attack us.

    You go back to the judge letting them go....

    I say again. I have no idea if he is right or wrong or if the decision is under appeal.

    One thing I do know. Article 4 says that that, among others quals, the prisoner must meet:

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    And Article 5 says:

    Should any doubt arise

    No doubt exists that they failed to meet those three quals.

    So whatever they are, they are not Prisoners of War.

    I suspect government lawyers figured that out almost 8 years ago and that's why they came up with the Unlawful Combatant moniker. I again note that we also gave them review boards, much like the Article 5 hearing you brought in.

    As for your false claim, I understand your background and how you operate. Failing to make your point you resort, again, to trying to reframe the debate.

    Parent

    you ain't proved squat (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    calling white black, black white, night day and day night.

    Oh My!

    As for reframing, I have kept this on track. You, on the other hand, have subsituted your own definitions for torture rather than use the legal one. You have subsituted your judgment for the judge- who actually heard the evidence, both pro and con.  

    Don't let a little thing like facts get in the way.

    Next you will be denying that Obama won the election or that this is the month of January, or that the year is 2009.

    There is a phrase for this sort of behavior.

    Parent

    It's true they don't follow this sentence: (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    It is a liberal shibboleth that torture doesn't work--that suspects will say anything, including lies, to stop the pain. But the reality is perhaps less clear.

    with proof; that's because that sentence is preceded by this one (emphasis mine):

    Waterboarding--simulating drowning by pouring water over the suspect's mouth and nostrils--is a brutal interrogation method. But by some (disputed) accounts, it was CIA waterboarding that got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to talk.

    I thought putting "disputed" in parentheses was a nice touch - I wonder how many people understand how much garbage Mohammed gave the CIA as a result of his treatment, and if they knew, would be wondering at the audacity of declaring torture-doesn't-work as a liberal shibboleth?  Or, gee, maybe the readers would like to know what those disputed reports actually said in order to make their own judgments.  

    But, what the heck - the new season of "24" is on just in time to help educate people in the effectiveness of torture.

    (If my eyes don't stop rolling, I'm going to be terminally dizzy)

    Parent

    Of course, that statement ... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    isn't proof either.  It's anecdotal at best.  And disputed.

    And they provide no evidence to support that the ineffectiveness of torture is a "liberal shibboleth."

    In fact, liberals who believe this notion have much support from actual interrogators and government reports.  As you can see in this Wapo article from '05.

    This is what supporting evidence looks like:

    Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."



    Parent
    That's what makes the article such a (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    piece of garbage; I didn't expect anything better from Taylor - did you?

    I couldn't even read the whole thing it was so bad - perfect example of what's wrong with the media.

    And it's everywhere; the majority of people still think that if they read it in the newspaper or magazine, or see it on the news, it's true.

    God help us.

    Parent

    I don't know quite ... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    what I expect anymore.  But that article surprised me in it's incoherence and laziness.

    If you'd handed that in as a paper in any accredited university it would receive a failing grade.

    It fails on every level.  As a piece of journalism, or opinion, or even on meeting the basic standard of coherent writing.

    Parent

    Stuart Taylor predicted (none / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    Paula Jones would survive a motion for summary judgment. She didn't.  So much for Taylor's legal acumen.

    Parent
    "not unwisely?" (none / 0) (#71)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    Does the stylebook really, truly allow double negatives?

    How modern.

    Parent

    Members of the intelligence (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by JSN on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    community were the ones that said torture did not provide
    reliable information not the liberals. The argument against torture
    was not based on morality but rather on impracticality.

    If it known that torture is an approved measure the threat of torture is a credible and I think that is the  root of the problem.

    What? (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    Could you try that last sentence again?  I can't make any sense out of it.


    Parent
    I would translate that to: (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    If it is known that torture is an approved measure, then the threat of torture is credible, and I think that is the  root of the problem.

    But, I could be wrong...

    Parent

    Thanks, Anne (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    I see what he/she's saying now, but I don't understand it.  The root of what problem?

    Parent
    Torture is inhuman (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    Whether torture works is the wrong question. Torture affects both sides; it tortures the victim and demeans the torturer. Furthermore, once you start torture, it never stops at a level you want, it always deteriorate to extremes and affects wider circles than the torturer and the victim.

    We should debate the real question and not the less important one, one of efficiency.

    I hope the lack of debate on the real question (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    is because torture is so obviously wrong that there is nothing to discuss, and not because we have conceded that anything is OK if it "works" and "protects us".

    Parent
    My question is (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    Why not use what works?

    When the torture scandals first broke, I heard at least one interview with someone who conducted interrogations/interviews with prisoners during war time.  No torture at all.  After all, his goal was to get his prisoners to cooperate as voluntarily as possible.  He was very successful.  He didn't view them as The Enemy and once they didn't view him as The Enemy either, they often got along like old friends.  

    I was very impressed.  Has Jack Bauer ever wined and dined a prisoner and done his best Huckabee impression to get them to open up?  Boring, I know.  Besides, his coworkers might get jealous and think he's gone soft.

    Parent

    Coddling prisoners? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    Now you're just talking crazy!

    Seriously, the behavioral study evidence is overwhelming that rewards are a much better motivator than punishment. But our society will never use that model.

    Parent

    Hypocracy (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    The most disgusting aspect of the torture debate is the the advocates profess to be such great Americans and for the most part devote Christians.  Torture is contrary to both. We are supposed to be beacon for human rights.

    Can you imagine the national outrage if American citizens were being subjected to this "enhanced interrogation" overseas? How many of our citizens would we allow to be held overseas for years without charges being filed against them?

    Remember the outrage (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    when the Chinese forced down a U.S. plane early in the Bush administration and it was discovered the Chinese had woken up the pilot in the middle of the night a few times to interrogate him?

    Oh, the horror.

    Parent

    That is called (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    Your side vs our side...

    BTW - Our naval air prisoners met the qualifications of being POW's.

    The GC defines exactly how they are to be treated.

    The guerrillas  we speak of here are not POW's.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    Can you be a POW without a W?  Aren't spies subject to different treatment than combatants?

    Parent
    The claim that these were spies (1.50 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    was made by the Chinese.

    You keep good company.

    Parent

    Well gosh (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    This may come as news to you, but it's the capturing party who gets to make the determination of status.  When we captured German spies during WWII, I hope you're not under the impression that before we could treat them as spies, we had to wait for Germany to say "yes, those are our spies."

    I'm still curious to know how anyone can be a POW when there's no war.

    Parent

    I am under the impression (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    that if you want to defend the Chinese that's your business, but don't expect me to justify your actions by arguing with you.

    Parent
    You angling for a job with Dick Cheney? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    What an absurd response.  First of all, as Steve M points out, in no way were these guys prisoners of war because there was no war.

    Secondly, the outrage was not over whether or not the strict provisions of the Geneva Conventions had or hadn't been met.  The outrage was over how mean and nasty and cruel it was to wake somebody up in the middle of the night for interrogation.

    Parent

    So you don't consider (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    attacks on America an act of war?

    Please call Roosevelt immediately.

    Parent

    Some are. Some aren't. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    Oklahoma City?

    What say you?

    Parent

    I wasn't under the impression that we (2.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    were talking about acts by US citizens... but by radical Muslims... but then the old moral equivalence argument always comes into play by the Left.

    Parent
    Ummm, Jim? (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    I'm not 'the left.'  And I'm not talking moral equivalence.

    Try to follow the answers to your own questions.  And try to answer those posed to you.  Direcdtly.

    Changing the subject is an old tactic and not an effective one.

    Parent

    Changing the subject? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    The subject was not about Oklahoma city.

    And I will answer as I think proper.

    And thank you very much.

    Parent

    When did China attack America, please? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    If you can't keep track of your own argument, Cheney will never hire you.

    Parent
    When they forced down the P3A aircraft (1.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:46:02 PM EST
    Please try to remember what happened.

    Parent
    Sometimes we forget (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:04:57 AM EST
    that for right-wingers, a war exists whenever they feel it does.  Like the way we've been at war with Iran since 1979.

    Parent
    Even as a social liberal (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    ...yes.... even as a social liberal I find forcing down US aircraft acts of war.

    I guess I'm funny like like that.


    Parent

    The Khalid Sheik Mohammed example (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ChrisO on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    gets trotted out again and again. I guess the argument behind it is that torture is only wrong when we get bad information. If it results in actionable intelligence, then suddenly the morality changes. So if we torture a prisoner and get no information, we just say "Oops."

    Just like the Iraq (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:50:49 PM EST
    invasion: a hundred thousand "oops" for one Saddam.

    Parent
    "perhaps" "could" "might (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Exeter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    are all words that should rarely be used in a news article.

    I'm tired of these kind of wishy washy "news" articles that are little more than op-ed pieces dressed in the officialdom of a regular article.

    authoritative (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    Since when is Newsweek an authoritative scholarly journal about the best interrogation methods?  

    I love all you folks (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    leaning back in your comfortable chairs writing platitudes and feeling just so righteous!

    Of course the actions I listed under definitions are uncomfortable. They are meant to be!

    As Repack Rider commented here in the past, torture is having someone do something to you that you do not like!

    Well, the terrorists do not like to be imprisoned!
    Let them go!

    You have left the realm of silly (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    and entered the realm of stupid.

    Do you consider yourself a serious person, Jim?

    Parent

    I consider myself serious (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    only when I demonstrate enough restraint to ignore dumb personal attacks.

    How 'bout you?

    Parent

    OK...now you've made me laugh! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:37:35 AM EST
    II'll try to stick to 'smart' personal attacks from now on, avoiding the 'dumb' ones, but you're turning into something of a killjoy...not to mention not sticking to your own rule.

    If I have to think through every personal attack beforehand, creativity goes right out the window.

    If the subject is serious, chances are I am serious.  Restraint has nothing to do with it.

    Parent

    Well, that would (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    be an improvement.

    The question is, are you capable? Many are, and I am not saying this about you, legends in their own minds.

    You know, it's funny. No one has tried to debate if self defense, and defense of others who you are responsible for, is morally correct. And at what point would certain actions become morally wrong?

    All they do is read my definitions of what I don't consider torture and scream "not so" sometimes followed by "doesn't work." I swear I sometimes think I am reading an old Miller Lite commercial.

    On a similar note I find it amusing, maybe odd, maybe discouraging is better... that the Left, in general, cheers the use of military force in places that we have no national interest, or if we do it would be best served by letting others with larger interests "correct" the problem.

    Why do they accept "we are our brothers keeper" when it concerns Muslims in Kosovo, and reject it when it concerns preventing attacks from radical Muslims?

    Parent

    Too bad (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    you can't meet the definition of debate. But you do try. I'll give you that. Now.

    Is it, or is it not, morally correct to do those things I have defined to protect ourselves and for those who are sworn to protect us to do those things?

    The context, of course, is that we are engaged in a guerrilla type warfare and that the interrogations be tightly controlled and supervised.

    You claim that to do so turns us into radical Muslims.

    Yet we educate our female population....do not hang female rape victims...do not hang gays....do not force marriage on young girls to old men...do not stone women accused of infidelity...do not punish women for merely being alone with a non-family male....do not allow fathers and brothers to kill female family members for bringing dishonor on the family....do not encourage our children to become suicide bombers.... and the Baptists don't physically attack the Methodists or the Lutherans or any combination thereof....and have a society in which all religions are welcome.

    Your argument is moral equivalency on steroids and obviously wrong.

    Parent

    Do you wear hairshirts (none / 0) (#73)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    and sit on hard, wooden, uncushioned chairs just so you can write a sentence like that without feeling the hypocrisy?
    Or are you just stupid.

    Parent
    Whatever I am I mostly try to (1.00 / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    make a point without spewing out dumb personal attacks.

    My point remains. Repack said what he said. And based on all the caterwauling I see about prisoners who have demonstrated a penchant for attacking the US, I think I stated a logical conclusion.

    Feel free to disagree. As nastily as possible, of course.

    It makes my point.

    Parent

    More reading comprehension (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:31:58 AM EST
    problems, I see.


    Parent
    I'm feeling angry, not righteous (none / 0) (#80)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    The fact that my government tortures other human beings in my name is abhorrent to me.

    I am not about cuddling people who want to destroy me, but the minute we torture them, we become them.

    And torture, according to those who have used it, does not work. The person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain.

    Parent

    I gave you a definition of what I consider (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:44:19 PM EST
    torture.

    Adhering to those won't turn us into a 7th throwback wanting to impose our religion on the Muslim world.

    And I have explained, in detail, why all information, true and false, is valuable and how all information must be vetted. Please drop the simplistic view that Jack Bauer, to use an example the Left loves, is about developing intelligence.

    Parent

    Frankly, I don't like your tone (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:40:10 AM EST
    And I have explained, in detail, why all information, true and false, is valuable and how all information must be vetted.

    Should we address you as your Holiness? The all knowing who has taken it upon himself to preach to the less intelligent?

    You are coming across as pompous.

    Please drop the simplistic view that Jack Bauer, to use an example the Left loves, is about developing intelligence.

    Please drop the superiority complex, it usually hides insecurity.

    Parent

    And you (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    should try less psycho babble.

    I was merely pointing out what I had previously done and what I think is obvious.

    Parent

    You expect consistency? HA! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:06:36 AM EST


    What is "Work"? (none / 0) (#2)
    by rea on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:17:19 AM EST
    The seemingly conflicted answers can be reconciled.  Torture might "work" in particular instances, in the sense that if you torture a particular individual, he will probably talk, and he might tell the truth.  Torture as a policy, however, doesn't work, because it produces tons of bad information along with the good, and makes people less likely to cooperate without torture, and destroys  the torturer's claim to be the "good guy."

    Bush admits to torture (none / 0) (#7)
    by babalou on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    How many times did Bush said:  "United States does not torture".  Did you believe him then?  There was only one, ONE, reason for torture and it was not to get so-called information to save American lives.  These prisoners are mostly tribal men.  This is a big cover up.  They were tortured to force them to admit that they were related to 9/11 as a cover up. Most of them were sold to the U.S. (as per Amnesty International report) by the Pakistani gov. Some were sold  for $l,000.00 and other for more. Many of them were tortured to severely that either they became handicapped, schizophrenic or worse, committed suicide.  

    Torture "Works" If You're Reason (none / 0) (#13)
    by tokin librul on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    For Using It is to extract confessions.

    Thought crimes, especially, are valued objects of torture practices: blasphemy, apostasy, sacrilege. These are the 'crimes' that torture efficiently reveals...

    Damn near infallible in that regard, unless the victim holds martyr fantasies.

    Otherwise, ummmmmm, not so much...

    Right, it's great ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    if you want someone to confess that they're a witch or controlled by demons.

    Parent
    Definitions (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud noise, temperature extremes and insulting cultural mores are not torture.

    I provide that just so someone can't later claim I am for actual torture. Having defined that, I will say again that information obtained, either true or false is helpful, and that all information can be vetted for accuracy.

    Intelligence information does not always consist of, a la Jack Bauer, "The bomb is in a trash can at 24th and Main!" It requires careful putting together of a mosaic of information to reach a conclusion.

    But even prior to that comes the question, how should the prisoner be designated?

    It is obvious to anyone, I believe, that if the prisoner is a prisoner of war, then the GC rules apply. And if they fall into certain other categories the GC rules apply.

    But they are not POW's. They are  illegal combatants, terrorists, guerrillas. There is no nation state to return them to after hostilities cease. There is no army that they wear a uniform for.

    Indeed, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Bush administration designated these people POWs. Under GC rules they would be retained until hostilities ended, which in this undeclared war could be years and years.

    If that had happened, would we now be seeing the Left demand they are not POWs and have Combatant Status Review Tribunals to see if they should be released? (That is how the process works.)

    Link

    I mention the above because until you decide that, you can go no further, unless you are of the opinion everyone is to be treated as a POW, except differently. The "difference" is a requirement for a full up US type criminal justice trial with all the rules of evidence, etc.

    The above, I believe, is a accurate statement of the belief of the Left.

    That the result of that, I believe, has now dawned on some of the media, as well as Obama and some of his staff. Said result is that guilty terrorists may well be set free to kill again.

    So you are apt to see a good bit of twisting and turning as the realities of the world sinks in, and that the responsibility now rests with Obama. He will reap the success and he will reap the failures. So have all Presidents.

    But you are for torture (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    Waterboarding is clearly torture, whether or not you believe it is.  We prosecuted the Japanese as war criminals for using it against our soldiers in WWII.  In Vietnam we court-martialed one of our own soldiers for using it.  Never until the present conflict has anyone suggested that waterboarding is something other than torture.  This was a Khmer Rouge technique, for heaven's sake.

    Parent
    Isn't sleep deprivation torture too? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    That can be fatal, in extremis.

    Parent
    I think so (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:05:38 PM EST
    I mean, we're talking about keeping people awake for days on end, even though the apologists talk about it like we're doing nothing more than keeping folks up past their bedtime.  Going without sleep for days is incredibly harmful physically and mentally.

    Parent
    I can attest to that (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    from my days of having a colicky infant - no sleep for days or weeks will literally drive you insane!

    Parent
    Raising children is (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    difficult... but I never knew it was torture.

    Really Molly, that is a classic I will cherish and save.

    Parent

    Um, OK (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    It was clearly tongue in cheek, but WEV PPJ.

    Parent
    Where was (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    that sense of humor yesterday?

    ;-)

    Parent

    wanktardery, as usual n/t (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:18:27 PM EST


    Parent
    History be history (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:36:44 PM EST


    Parent
    If you have to ask ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    it's probably torture.

    Parent
    Well, I think so too. Have you even (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    seen the beginning of an argument from Jimaka on this question? I've only seen the flat assertion, repeated 100 times, that waterboarding is not torture.

    Parent
    Does it really matter? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:20:49 PM EST
    Is there any credible argument for claiming waterboarding isn't torture?

    Parent
    The only point is what a timewaster (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    he is.

    Parent
    I usually scroll past ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    probably should have today as well.

    Parent
    Christopher Hitchens Waterboarded (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    Here's one of the war's big rah-rah supporters being waterboarded himself.

    It was torture to him, and is to anyone with a sentient bone in their bodies.

    Make your own video, Jim, and let's see you endure it.  Since it's not torture, it shouldn't be too difficult.

    Parent

    If you could get (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    Ann Coulter and Monica Crowley to go along, Im sure he'd be game.

    Parent
    I'll waterboard you (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    until I'm damn good and ready to quit and have heard everything I want to hear, and then tell me you weren't tortured.  As usual you border on the absurd.  If I wanted to torture people who annoy me I would just shut up about all of this because people I most empathize with and who best represent my beliefs are now running things.  I should just shut up and stroke them numerous times until they give me the heads up to waterboard you because you are kind of scary and anti the new establishment.  Who knows what plots you could be hatching in your conservative little brain for the downfall of this new President?  I think I had better find out.

    Parent
    So it is waterboarding now? (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    Last year it was spanking...

    Do I get a choice?

    BTW - When you start talking about "absurd" I urge you to read your own comments.

    Parent

    What's absurd about my comments? (4.75 / 4) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    You are sort of suspicious at times.  I think a little questioning couldn't hurt.  It can't hurt to just make sure the nation is safe and the existing authority structure has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FEAR from those who don't agree with it or its philosophies.  You may have thought about or think about doing things hurtful to Democrats and liberals.  Everyone knows you don't think much of them.  You may have fantasized which is the next step to actual planning some sort of "attack" and if you have ever thought of such a thing, talked about it among like minded individuals, I think waterboarding would reveal that and our nation would be a safer place.  Since waterboarding isn't torture why so seemingly uncooperative at the moment?

    Parent
    At times? Only at times? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    Everybody knows??

    I don't think much of Democrats and liberals?

    I have fantasized?

    And you ask, "What's absurd about my (your) comments?"

    Nice comic touch MT..didn't know you had in you..

    Oh, you were being serious??

    Uh....can we get back to the spanking part???

    ;-)

    Parent

    I'm not being comic (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    I'm concerned about the safety of the nation.  Anybody else could also find themselves concerned about it at any given time too. People with all the authority could find themselves concerned about you at some time.  I hope your real life name has never ever been something known by anyone who could be suspected of any kind of "domestic terrorism" if suddenly waterboarding doesn't sound like something you want to experience yourself.  I mean if I'm waterboarding, look, it isn't a lot of fun so I'm going to waterboard until I'm sure I have it all. I'm going to make certain that I get "it all".....everything the person remotely thinks could be beneficial to what I'm seeking, I'm getting it.  I don't want to leave even one bastion of inner defense left that they could hide one tiny detail I need behind. So...waterboarding isn't torture huh?  Sometimes my memory gets a little fuzzy too as age comes along.  I bet Focus Factor can't hold a candle to a little waterboarding when it comes to remembering that old cranky anti-liberal name of my nextdoor neighbor that I used to rant conservative with when I was in Junior High.  Think ppj, attempt to grasp the full ramifications of your indoctrinated rhetoric.

    Parent
    My my American Pie (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    Just the thought of you being concerned over the safety of the country is comedic in itself...

    And paranoia becomes you.

    Parent

    How am I being paranoid? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:29:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Read your comments. (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:34:47 PM EST


    Parent
    I wrote them duh (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    Now instead of pretending the whole world is enmeshed with you, perhaps you would like to "feel" and own your individuality, vulnerability, and aloneness in this universe for a change and express how I am in your opinion paranoid.

    Parent
    Gee MT (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    You're the one fantasizing about spanking me, waterboarding me, analyzing me.....

    What can I say? It looks like your world is enmeshed in me.

    Parent

    So instead of participating in a discussion (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 06:42:06 AM EST
    in the present tense among adults you now revert to a state of childishness?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    So you make a bunch of personal attacks and you think that I am childish when I refuse to respond.

    Tracy, let me explain. I have used humor to show how ridiculous your claims are.

    I hope that is plain enough for you to understand.

    Parent

    What personal attacks? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    Put them up here please.  I'm a big girl.  I can handle it.  AND, only you believe you have used humor to "show" something.  Obviously nobody else is getting it and something labeled "humor" is usually understood by the majority of onlookers so I don't think you can make claims to using humor to clarify anything.  Nothing has been clarified to me at least, and if you want to have an adult conversation both adults need to be able to fully understand the points that the other is making.

    Parent
    Wanting to waterboard or spank someone is not (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    personal??

    Wow.  Who knew?

    Parent

    This is hilarious (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:09:11 AM EST
    If waterboarding isn't a form of torture and just another good questioning method then how can I be attacking you by placing you in a scenario where you are being waterboarded?  I mean, you did get what I was pointing out.  A lot of people think some things are fine to happen in this world so long as they happen to SOMEONE else.  I'm glad that you got it.......waterboarding is torture and an attack on the person it is done to.  But you can't say that I'M attacking YOU with the desire to have you waterboarded (which I'm not, I argue for no one to be waterboarded) when you profess that waterboarding is a fine way to question people who seem suspicious.  It's 100% hysterical.

    Parent
    Jim, you not only support torture ... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    but support a justice system where no burden of proof is required.

    The state need only label you as a criminal and then they can do whatever they want with you, because otherwise you "may well be set free to kill again."

    It's a political philosophy to be sure.  But not the one we live under.

    Parent

    Your claim is (2.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    not supported by anything I have written.

    Parent
    Given the limitless creativity of the (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    human mind, it is a given that as soon as one form of treatment is deemed to be inhumane or torture, another and another and another will be devised to skirt the restrictions, and another and another and another reason will be found why it is permissible.

    Regardless of whether a detainee is or is not considered a POW, there is no good reason not to follow the conventions established for treatment of POW's; resting one's justification for inhumane treatment on nothing more than the classification of detainees only ensures that new and creative arguments will be advanced for why someone should not be afforded humane treatment.

    As has been said by many, at some point we have to decide what kind of people we are, and what kind of country we want to live in, because if we can justify inhumane treatment of non-citizens and non-residents, that limitlessly creative human mind will find a way to impose those treatments on American citizens and those who reside within our borders.

    For my money and in my opinion, we have already had enough encroachment on and abrogation of our rights and privileges, already seen a shift from power residing in the people to power residing in the state, already seen how measures undertaken to protect us from the evildoers have begun to turn inward; continuing a policy of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques - or whatever euphemism you want to call it - is a danger to us as individuals and a danger to the integrity of the democracy itself.


    Parent

    Torture, not torture (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    We get hung up on the definition.  Whatever you want to call it, it's undeniably unspeakable cruelty.  Cruelty equals torture, in my book.


    Parent
    Waterboarding (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Oh please.  Waterboarding is undeniably torture.  Anyone who says otherwise is not using the universally recognized definition of torture.  Simulated executions have always been deemed torture.  Things like pointing an empty gun at someone's head and then pulling the trigger have been recognized as torture for years.  Waterboarding is even worse because, in addition to creating the mental impression that the prisoner is going to die, it also adds the physical.  The Yoo/Bybee crap memos that purported to define torture as requiring organ failure or actual death never had any basis in reality.

    If you begin your whole post with "Waterboarding . . . is not torture," then there's no point in reading the rest of it, because it is clearly divorced from reality.

    Parent

    Here is a definition for you (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    Your list fits neatly in the italizised portion quoted below

    Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

    Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

    Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

    Have agreed as follows:

    Part I

    Article 1

    For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

    We signed the treaty; and we also signed The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture which

    defines torture more expansively than the United Nations Convention Against Torture, including "the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish."

    In case you are wondering about applicability

    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.

    In the final analysis Jim,  you are pro harming your fellow human beings who are in captivity. Your position doesn't fit the classic definition of sadism, but it is close.

    Parent

    As Churchill said... (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    No, we don't want to go back to that....

    The legality of what I provided in my definitions can be pointed out, debated, etc, and et al forever and ever. It is meaningless to me since I hold that it is morally proper to do these things in self defense and by our "agents" in defense of themselves and others.

    BTW - Treaties can be also be terminated so I have no idea as to why you bring that point up unless you think it supports your argument in some unknown way.

    BTW - Before you raise the old "well then I guess you think it is ok if "they" do it" argument, let me specify that the only thing that I consider proper for these terrorists to do is to cease their attacks, surrender or commit suicide.. or any combination of the above.

    I trust that makes my position clear.

    BTW - Can we put you down for housing a few of the GITMO folks? They obviously are going to need a home.... (snark)

    Parent

    I would be glad to do my part and participate in (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    an Article 5 hearing. HOwever, I think you need to be in the military for that.

    I used to do some criminal defense work Jim. Most of my clients back then would have liked to redefine their actions so they would be excluded from criminal activity. UNFORTUNATELY for them, they didn't have the legal ability to redefine their actions, anymore than you can redefine torture. You are welcome to your personal definition, it is meaningless in the context of whether or not the Bushies have committed war crimes. Since your personal definitions have no bearing on the subject at hand, I decline to debate them, other than to point out you have made clear you like to physically assault people in captivity who cannot defend themselves. Does it make you feel manly Jim?

    Parent

    You are certainly having a hard time (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:07:57 PM EST
    understanding that Article 4 defines and Article 5 says any doubt. If there is no doubt they don't meet Article 4, guess what??

    But just to show you how fair we are:

    I  thought it would be appropriate, getting near the end of the year, to give you a wrap up because we have gotten together seven previous times in terms of status.

    I thought it would be interesting if you had a wrap up in terms of where we are at the end of the year both with the Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- CSRTs -- and also with the administrative review boards, the ARBs

    Again, for explanation/clarification, CSRTs, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, that is the determination if someone is or is not an enemy combatant.  So it strictly is or is not an enemy combatant; that's the only determination made by those boards.  And if an EC -- that is, if an enemy combatant -- then detained, and then they're scheduled for an administrative review board.  So administrative review boards' annual review, they determine if someone should continue to be detained after a determination of an enemy combatant status. So they're the two boards and I'll give you a status of where we are, this time at the end of this year.

    Link

    Heck, some of the reviews worked so well we let'em out so they could get back in the fight!

    Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

    One of the more notable cases involved Mohammed Ismail (search), one of two teens held at Gitmo until he was let go last year. He was recaptured four months later fighting American troops in Afghanistan. The memo notes that at the time of his capture Ismail was carrying a letter "confirming his status as a Taliban member in good standing."

    "One of the most publicized cases, Mr. Ismail, was released to great fanfare at Guantanamo," Hunter said. Ismail "did a press conference at which he thanked the United States for educating him, because we teach them to read and write at Guantanamo."

    I admit these killers are polite.

    Parent

    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ you write:

    But they are not POW's. They are  illegal combatants, terrorists, guerrillas. There is no nation state to return them to after hostilities cease. There is no army that they wear a uniform for.

    So, if they're not POW'S,  why are we calling it a war? Why don't we just call it a retaliation?

    And if, as you assert, they are terrorists, and we have a war against terrorists...What? How are they not POW's?

    I didn't know you needed a uniform to be in a war.  Luckily for us we live in a country with an abundance of talented designers who can whip something up for our soldiers in no time.

    What do you mean there is no country or state to return them to? Just take them to the same country or state you picked them up from.

    Parent

    Yes, you are lucky. (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    A prisoner of war is defined in the Geneva Convention. These people do not meet the definition. I invite you to read it.

    We are calling it a war because we have been attacked numerous times. See dictionary.

    Wearing a uniform or distinctive dress is one of the qualifications.

    There is no country that claims responsibility for their actions, thus the conflict is not between states. So there is no defeated enemy homeland to return them to. See the GC.

    Parent

    I dont suppose it ever (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    occured to you to speculate on the "whys" behind the G.C recommendations for the treatment of prisoners, eh Jim?

    Obviously all that matters, from the higher ground you stand on, is how we worm out of them.

    Parent

    If you want to write your own (1.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    GC's, please do so.

    No one will pay attention, but therapy is good.

    BTW - Why should I speculate on something I understand?

    BTW - Why don't you understand that the terrorists don't give a good head chopping off about the GC.

    Of course you did write this about Christians and Jews:

    [ Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5  ]
    Yeah, in the long view, (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    I believe they're equal threats.


    Parent

    I looked it up in the dictionary as you suggested (none / 0) (#79)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:16:38 PM EST
    1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare

    here

    The funny things is, that your logic is completely convoluted.

    We are calling it a war because we have been attacked numerous times. See dictionary.

    So, we're just calling it a war, but it really isn't?

    The only super power in the world couldn't come up with the right definition for it? like retaliation?

    And if we're calling it a war- when we capture "These people," as you call them- either during active fighting or through itelligence... they're not prisoners of the war, you admit we're in?  

    Right.


    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    So you don't consider attacks on the US and our response to them "war."

    Please call the US Senate immediately..

    And then get a pre 9/11 NY phonebook and start calling....

    Parent

    Man, you sound like a troll (none / 0) (#113)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    Have a good life.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    Now tell me. Why is it when you can't answer a point I become a Troll?

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    Molly Bloom and I had a detailed discussion over the POW issue, complete with links, etc.

    Read.

    Parent

    Oh for f***'s sake... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 05:16:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Who Are You Going To Believe (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:39:37 AM EST
     jimakaPPJ:

    Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud noise, temperature extremes and insulting cultural mores are not torture.

    or Eric Holder:

    Waterboarding is torture


    Parent
    This is step one in rehabilitating Bush (none / 0) (#39)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    and the beltway's generally hawkish consensus on security issues. That rehabilitation is needed to provide grounds for criticizing, pressuring, discouraging any attempt by the new administration to stray from establishment consensus.

    In 2006, Newsweek Reported Torture Does Not Work | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment