Safeguards To Torture

[dairygirl4u2c]

notice it's like i had predicted/recommended. only do it when there's immediate danger and looking at the totality of the situtaion. with safeguards such as presidential approval.

[quote]White House Defends CIA's Use of 'Waterboarding' Interrogation Technique
By Paula Wolfson
White House
06 February 2008


The White House is defending the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding in certain, rare circumstances when suspects are believed to have knowledge of an imminent threat. VOA's Paula Wolfson reports the Central Intelligence Agency now admits it used the technique roughly five years ago on three top terror suspects.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto says President Bush personally authorized the disclosure - breaking with the long-standing practice in the administration of refusing comment on specific interrogation techniques.

He says the decision to have Central Intelligence Agency chief Michael Hayden go before a Congressional committee and reveal the use of waterboarding in the past was difficult, because it could provide the enemy with information about the CIA's program for questioning terror suspects.

"This decision to allow General Hayden to talk about the technique wasn't taken lightly," Fratto said. "There was discussion of great concern about starting to talk about something we don't ordinarily do for reasons that we feel very strongly about."

Fratto says so much misinformation has been disseminated about the interrogation program, that the White House felt it was time to set the record straight.

Fratto says waterboarding - which simulates drowning - was approved in a few specific instances and with certain safeguards in place.

The CIA banned the practice in 2006. Fratto says interrogators might be able to use it again, but emphasized they would need authorization from the president to do so.

He noted that any CIA request to use the technique would have to be declared legal by the Justice Department before consideration at the White House. He says approval depends on the circumstances, adding one important factor would be the belief that an attack might be imminent.

"Any change to the enhanced interrogation technique that may be used will follow the process that I outlined which includes a legal review and notification of Congress," he said.

Critics have called waterboarding a form of torture. But Fratto says its use in the past under the conditions approved by the attorney general and the president was legal.

On Capitol Hill, a senior Democrat - Senator Johnsonville brat Durbin of Illinois - denounced the use of waterboarding under any circumstances. He noted that in its annual human rights report, the U.S. State Department is quick to condemn other nations that use harsh interrogation techniques on prisoners.

"So once a year we stand in judgment of the world, and condemn them for engaging in waterboarding and torture techniques on their prisoners," he said. "And yet it is clear from the testimony yesterday of General Hayden, that we have engaged in some of those own techniques."

The U.N.'s torture investigator also responded to the CIA disclosure, calling on the Bush administration to give up its defense of enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding. Manfred Nowak told the Associated Press in Geneva that these techniques are totally unacceptable under international law.[/quote]

[jeffpugh]

Big freakin whoop. It's going to the president....

"Mr President, I hope you don't mind that we take time out of your busy schedule, but we have a person in custody who may know something about a bombing that may happen in some unknown subway. Can we get your permission to waterboard him?"

"what's he look like?"

"Oh, you know, one of those minority types."

"Oh, carry on then. Tell me how it works out."



As far as I'm concerned, just because "Mr. President" is the safety to this operation, doesn't make him the BEST safety (btw, I'm not thinking of Bush in particular, I know you're going through election stuff, but it's hypothetical). How about asking the people who have tortured in the past if it's alright to do it for the circumstance, and have them do the job. The closer the relations to the client the government can get, the better when it comes to this matter... my point? I don't freakin care if they're draggin the Prez into this. No torture. Any man who is a part of this act inflicts damage all around.

[CatherineM]

My father returned from a POW camp during WWII absent most of his teeth because of questions he chose not to answer. I was woken many nights to his screaming in his sleep. I just can't imagine doing that to another human being, or allowing it to be done. I guess I'm just glad I don't have to be the one making the decision to torture one person to save many more.

[Justin86]

My opinion: have all of our interrogation methods that we're willing to use on terrorists performed on our own interrogators that way they can more accurately gauge if its appropriate in the situation. It would seem more in line with "Do unto others..."

Edited February 7, 2008 by Justin86

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote]As far as I'm concerned, just because "Mr. President" is the safety to this operation, doesn't make him the BEST safety (btw, I'm not thinking of Bush in particular, I know you're going through election stuff, but it's hypothetical). How about asking the people who have tortured in the past if it's alright to do it for the circumstance, and have them do the job. The closer the relations to the client the government can get, the better when it comes to this matter... my point? I don't freakin care if they're draggin the Prez into this. No torture. Any man who is a part of this act inflicts damage all around.[/quote]

You know, this is kinda of like saying that we should only allow a person who has been nuked to control the nukes.We elect a president for many reasons. One of those is to be Commander-in-Chief. That involves decisions about things like torture. Many of our presidents have made this decision; however, not all of them have been publicized like Bush's decisions have. This is not really a new thing.

If you want someone who has been tortured to control the torture, then elect McCain.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i saw a poll that said that most people say it's torture, which seems reasonable.
but, 40% were in favor of waterboarding and some torture in dire situations.
i'd bet if that other 60% were really put in the tought situation of deciding, those figures would quick reverse themselves, at the least. ie it's just not something that people want to think about, and tend to be against as a knee jerk more than a thought out decision. generally.

[Deb]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' date='Feb 7 2008, 08:27 AM' post='1456944']
You know, this is kinda of like saying that we should only allow a person who has been nuked to control the nukes.We elect a president for many reasons. One of those is to be Commander-in-Chief. That involves decisions about things like torture. Many of our presidents have made this decision; however, not all of them have been publicized like Bush's decisions have. This is not really a new thing.

If you want someone who has been tortured to control the torture, then elect McCain.
[/qu

I think that Bush's decision to allow torture and to send people to other countries for some really horrifying torture is that he is the only one who has said, "sure, go ahead." He was probably in a hurry to get back to his ranch for a vacation. No one elected Bush to any of the things he has done. I am not even sure anyone even elected him. He is a bad example to use.

[cmotherofpirl]

There are no safeguards needed, you simply don't torture people.
The end doesn't justify the means.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1457062' date='Feb 7 2008, 03:03 PM']There are no safeguards needed, you simply don't torture people.
The end doesn't justify the means.[/quote]


If torture is OK under certain circumstances, why did the CIA destroy videotapes of wateboarding? Why won't AG Mukasey come out and say waterboarding is OK? Would you want it done to you? Gee, why not?

We're better than that. Or we're supposed to be.

[Deb]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1457092' date='Feb 7 2008, 02:57 PM']

If torture is OK under certain circumstances, why did the CIA destroy videotapes of wateboarding? Why won't AG Mukasey come out and say waterboarding is OK? Would you want it done to you? Gee, why not?

We're better than that. Or we're supposed to be.[/quote]

Yes! Many citizens who maybe weren't around pre-1980 may not know that most of the world looked up to us when it came to our moral values. Like, not starting wars for no reason, not defying the geneva convention, not torturing people, giving everyone the right to a trial, not illegally spying on people in this country,,,,, I could go on.
Now, Bush and co. may wish to have you believe that every single thing they have done has been in protection of this country but, that is all carp. When things like they have done become the norm, we lose more and more of our soul and more and more of our freedom.
We USED to be better than that.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Deb

[prose]

I don't understand why scientist have not been able to come up with some sort of drug or procedure that forces a person to be honest.

I know this sounds like science fiction, but I would think that lying registers in a certain part of our brains. It would seem to me that someone could somehow find a way to block that part of the brain.

No torture, only truth.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='prose' post='1457129' date='Feb 7 2008, 05:03 PM']I don't understand why scientist have not been able to come up with some sort of drug or procedure that forces a person to be honest.

I know this sounds like science fiction, but I would think that lying registers in a certain part of our brains. It would seem to me that someone could somehow find a way to block that part of the brain.

No torture, only truth.[/quote]
Mmm... veritaserum...

[jeffpugh]

This veritaserum would be dangerous... what if it falls in the hands of persecutors? But it's an interesting idea, Prose.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've heard of drugs that make one more prone to being open etc, but i don't think it's too effective, especially with someone who's militant to lie.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote]I think that Bush's decision to allow torture and to send people to other countries for some really horrifying torture is that he is the only one who has said, "sure, go ahead." He was probably in a hurry to get back to his ranch for a vacation. No one elected Bush to any of the things he has done. I am not even sure anyone even elected him. He is a bad example to use.[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that he was elected, seeing how he has been president for the last 8 years. And I know people who voted for him. And judging from all the pro-war and 'W' bumper sticker I've seen, I'd say a lot of people voted for him. And then there was that whole Supreme Court decision. You're welcome to argue with them if you want.

And if Bush is a bad example, then how about Clinton? [url="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html"]Apparently (according to the ACLU)[/url], he is the one who started the program that Bush expanded. Bush is not the one who said, "Sure, go ahead." That was the beloved of the Left, Slick Willy, Hisself. Bush just said, "Sure, carry on the legacy." Torture is a bipartisan affair.

Also, less than two years ago, [url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={8FB24D9C-6344-4679-8A1D-32E0B4C4678C}"]Bill Clinton said he supported post-facto torture warrants,[/url] kinda like the wiretap setup. This torture thing is really a more common thing than most people think. (And on that note, apparently, [url="http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2005/12/30/brit_envoy_says_uk_lied_on_torture/5967/"]the UK and maybe the EU are not above a bit of torture either[/url]).

I'm not saying that either one is right. But I am saying that if anyone decides if we torture or not, the president, working under the auspices of the laws of the United States of America, is probably who should decide who and when.

I don't know that I agree with the amount of torture that rumor has claimed for Bush. But I honestly have never read any verification of those rumors beyond the affirmation of those three cases of waterboarding (if one considers waterboarding torture). Most of the 'torture' that I read about at Abu Ghraib involved disrespecting Islam.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Deb' post='1457117' date='Feb 7 2008, 03:44 PM']Yes! Many citizens who maybe weren't around pre-1980 may not know that most of the world looked up to us when it came to our moral values. Like, not starting wars for no reason, not defying the geneva convention, not torturing people, giving everyone the right to a trial, not illegally spying on people in this country,,,,, I could go on.
Now, Bush and co. may wish to have you believe that every single thing they have done has been in protection of this country but, that is all carp. When things like they have done become the norm, we lose more and more of our soul and more and more of our freedom.
We USED to be better than that.[/quote]

Let's see...I think they respected us more because we saved them from the Germans twice and then rebuilt their homes. The United States of America has started several wars for no reason. There was the one with the Native Americans. There was the Spanish-American war. There was the war with Mexico. These wars had excuses that may have been flimsier than some claim the reason for the War in Iraq to be.

Oh, the 'USA doesn't torture' meme. That is simply not true. America used torture. France used torture. Britain used torture. It wasn't until after World War II that was started frowning on that sort of thing. During and after WWII, torture became, publicly at least, the method of the enemy.

[quote]Before World War II, the British, the Americans, and the French all practiced torture: the French in Vietnam, the British in their mandate of Palestine, the Americans in the Philippines, not to mention what our police were doing in cities large and small. Police in democratic states used electrotorture, water torture, painful stress positions, drugs, and beatings. They did so sometimes on their own, sometimes in collusion with local citizens, and sometimes with the quiet approval, if not explicit authorization, of their governments. All this before the Central Intelligence Agency ever existed.[/quote]--[url="http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46637.html"]The History News Network[/url]

I could go on.

It would be nice to be able to say that we USED to be better than that, and also have it be the truth at the same time. But history repeats itself. There is nothing new under the sun. Even freedom in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Go look up the Sedition Acts. Or there was the First Red Scare. Or the McCarthy thing.

The United States of America is a great country. But appeals to the past are going to backfire in this case.

[Alycin]

"If one consideres waterboarding torture."





It is so blatantly apparent to me that if something is SO FREAKING CLOSE to being torture that people can't even decide whethere or not it should "officially" be called such... well then there's your answer.


I mean does anyone else feel this way? It's like drawing a line and placing waterboarding 1/16 of a milimeter away from the "official torture" tick. If it's that close... then we should err on the side of NOT BEING THE JERKS THAT TORTURE HUMAN BEINGS.



Sorry for the CAPS I just feel very strongly about this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry you feel that way alycin. i feel very strongly the other way.

to say that you'd rather allow 20 million people die from a nuke, if not more in a doomsday nuke invasion... just so you can not torture.
if you were in that situatin and didn't torture, you should be thrown in jail and found guilty of treason.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1457243' date='Feb 7 2008, 08:31 PM']"If one consideres waterboarding torture."
It is so blatantly apparent to me that if something is SO FREAKING CLOSE to being torture that people can't even decide whethere or not it should "officially" be called such... well then there's your answer.
I mean does anyone else feel this way? It's like drawing a line and placing waterboarding 1/16 of a milimeter away from the "official torture" tick. If it's that close... then we should err on the side of NOT BEING THE JERKS THAT TORTURE HUMAN BEINGS.
Sorry for the CAPS I just feel very strongly about this.[/quote]

This is why I think we should be very careful about what we do. If we do torture people, or use techniques that are close, we should have safeguards.

The problem is that I have never heard a compelling safeguard proposal from anyone in Congress. That includes banning torture altogether, a meme that I tend to group with most of the MoveOn.org memes. They are positions that no presidential candidate actually holds, but the candidates will sure pretend to think that way in order to win the nomination.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457322' date='Feb 8 2008, 12:14 AM']sorry you feel that way alycin. i feel very strongly the other way.

to say that you'd rather allow 20 million people die from a nuke, if not more in a doomsday nuke invasion... just so you can not torture.
if you were in that situatin and didn't torture, you should be thrown in jail and found guilty of treason.[/quote]

and if a substantial number of people died, you should be executed.

i say substantial number, cause it's always possible they wouldn't have info etc, and it was possible that they wouldn't have attacked.
i suppose i admire you for your convictions if you're willing to die for them. it's hard for me to comprehend not being willing to torture.... it is easy for me to see not wanting to because of psycholocialy avoiding the issue.
(i'm using you in a generic sense, no one personally necessarily)

definitely execution though. along with everyone else's risk of death, you take the risk of dying too, by not torturing.