CIA admits to waterboarding

[pohibaba]

I don't understand how the law has became so trivial to people. I posted this in a different thread on the same subject and I'll post it here too, because I believe its incredibly fucking powerful and deeply profound. The quote is paraphrased.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Aren't you the one who called President Clinton as the best President in your lifetime? He consistently ignored the Constitution while playing the world's policeman. Hypocritical much?

Regarding the debate: The argument over whether torture is un-American is pointless right now because our entire foreign policy is un-American. What incites the terrorists more, us torturing them or us having military bases on their holy land? Us torturing them or us supporting a country that consistently terrorizes the Palestinian people? Us torturing them or us invading their countries and replacing their leaders multiple times over the last 30 years?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I agree with Xavier here. Although it's ever so tempting and oh so easy sometimes to throw the whole "un-American" schtick back at the right and actually have it stick pretty well, it's still kind of.... lame.

You gotta be kidding me...

[Demosthenes11]

I don't understand how the law has became so trivial to people. I posted this in a different thread on the same subject and I'll post it here too, because I believe its incredibly fucking powerful and deeply profound. The quote is paraphrased.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Aren't you the one who called President Clinton as the best President in your lifetime? He consistently ignored the Constitution while playing the world's policeman. Hypocritical much?

Regarding the debate: The argument over whether torture is un-American is pointless right now because our entire foreign policy is un-American. What incites the terrorists more, us torturing them or us having military bases on their holy land? Us torturing them or us supporting a country that consistently terrorizes the Palestinian people? Us torturing them or us invading their countries and replacing their leaders multiple times over the last 30 years?

so much more eloquent than I am
<3

[Beckwin]

I agree with Xavier here. Although it's ever so tempting and oh so easy sometimes to throw the whole "un-American" schtick back at the right and actually have it stick pretty well, it's still kind of.... lame.

You gotta be kidding me...

So infringing on privacy, going to war without a congressional declaration, ignoring treaties we sign, and attempts to break down the barrier between church and state is considered "American"? That's why it can stick "pretty well" but not "definitely"- the concept of "American" is malleable enough for for the word to be thrown around to whatever end by whoever. Rightwingers can call you un-American for not supporting a military action the country is engaged in; leftwingers can throw that right back and say you're un-American for supporting a war entered on false pretenses and/or without a congressional declaration. That's why I disagree with it in general (thus agreeing with Xavier's sentiment), and it always just reeks of propagandizing cheap-shotting.

[Xavier]

I don't understand how the law has became so trivial to people. I posted this in a different thread on the same subject and I'll post it here too, because I believe its incredibly fucking powerful and deeply profound. The quote is paraphrased.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Aren't you the one who called President Clinton as the best President in your lifetime? He consistently ignored the Constitution while playing the world's policeman. Hypocritical much?

Fact distortion much? Where did I call President Clinton the best President of my lifetime? If you want to start shit, be accurate, otherwise you're just a tool.

Furthermore, I was barely alive under Reagen, and I doubt many people are going to call the current Bush a rousing success. I have no qualms with his father. My conscious lifetime essentially consists of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which one shit on the constitution more tough guy?

Regarding the debate: The argument over whether torture is un-American is pointless right now because our entire foreign policy is un-American. What incites the terrorists more, us torturing them or us having military bases on their holy land? Us torturing them or us supporting a country that consistently terrorizes the Palestinian people? Us torturing them or us invading their countries and replacing their leaders multiple times over the last 30 years?

Are you seriously suggesting that poor foreign policy justifies torture?

[Beckwin]

no, he's just trying to bring the subject to libertarian isolationism/foreign policy instead of debating the morality/legality of torture.

because on the former, he can talk about RON PAUL.

[pohibaba]

I don't understand how the law has became so trivial to people. I posted this in a different thread on the same subject and I'll post it here too, because I believe its incredibly fucking powerful and deeply profound. The quote is paraphrased.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Aren't you the one who called President Clinton as the best President in your lifetime? He consistently ignored the Constitution while playing the world's policeman. Hypocritical much?

Fact distortion much? Where did I call President Clinton the best President of my lifetime? If you want to start shit, be accurate, otherwise you're just a tool.

Furthermore, I was barely alive under Reagen, and I doubt many people are going to call the current Bush a rousing success. I have no qualms with his father. My conscious lifetime essentially consists of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which one shit on the constitution more tough guy?

Sorry if you misunderstood me, I was honestly asking the question as I didn't remember if it was you or not. Regardless, I've seen you offer your support for both Obama and Clinton and there's no doubt in my mind that they'll both turn over sovereignty of our military to the UN just like Clinton did. If you even consider Clinton a good President, then I still think the hypocrite comment stands as justified.

Regarding the debate: The argument over whether torture is un-American is pointless right now because our entire foreign policy is un-American. What incites the terrorists more, us torturing them or us having military bases on their holy land? Us torturing them or us supporting a country that consistently terrorizes the Palestinian people? Us torturing them or us invading their countries and replacing their leaders multiple times over the last 30 years?

Are you seriously suggesting that poor foreign policy justifies torture?[/quote]

No, I'm simply suggesting that stopping the torturing of terrorists will do absolutely nothing to improve our standing in the Muslim world as there are plenty of reasons for them to hate us even without that. I'm suggesting we do a complete 180 on our foreign policy and stop torture.

[Xavier]

Sorry if you misunderstood me, I was honestly asking the question as I didn't remember if it was you or not.

You're full of shit, you didn't ask me a question you called me a hypocrite.

Regardless, I've seen you offer your support for both Obama and Clinton and there's no doubt in my mind that they'll both turn over sovereignty of our military to the UN just like Clinton did.

I've also offered support towards Richardson, McCain, and Ron Paul, whats your point? I never endorsed a candidate. You've attacked me on quite large assumptions.

If you even consider Clinton a good President, then I still think the hypocrite comment stands as justified.

Good is a relative term subject to personal qualifications which may or may not encompass the same issues you're critical of. I think your statement is extreme. Furthermore, I have to ultimately support someone, because someone will ultimately be elected. There is no candidate and there hasn't been any President that 100% supported the Xavier Platform for America, there has been and there always will be, for everyone but the man running for President, a forced choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils.

And just because I don't agree with everything a President does, doesn't mean I'm going to condemn them if they are responsible for positive things as well.

No, I'm simply suggesting that stopping the torturing of terrorists will do absolutely nothing to improve our standing in the Muslim world as there are plenty of reasons for them to hate us even without that. I'm suggesting we do a complete 180 on our foreign policy and stop torture.

Do you understand the ignorance of that statement? For change to occur, it has to begin somewhere. As much as I'd love to wake up tomorrow to find a complete 180 on our foreign policy, you're living in a fantasy.

Your statement has just implied that you do not believe torture is negative. If stopping torture will do absolutely nothing to improve their opinion of us, then by inference it must be doing absolutely nothing to damage our reputation with them. Are you suggesting that they don't care about torture, that it doesn't upset them at all?

As I said, for change to occur, it has to begin somewhere. For change to occur, issues must be addressed and debated. For our foreign policy to improve, we have to address problems and work to change them. You've just labeled a discussion on torture irrelevant because our foreign policy is currently out of sync with American values. How the fuck do you realign that policy if you aren't willing to discuss corresponding issues?

You've made a nice blanket statement that ultimately amounts to nothing. Good luck changing the world by snapping your fingers.

[Neosutra]

I agree with Xavier here. Although it's ever so tempting and oh so easy sometimes to throw the whole "un-American" schtick back at the right and actually have it stick pretty well, it's still kind of.... lame.

You gotta be kidding me...

Getting away from this debate for a sec:

You dont actually believe the shit in the "liberal brain" pic on your sig do you? Because I already thought you were a moron, but was hoping you werent THAT brain washed.

[Kuya]

Didn't you guys do this whole little dance in another thread.

[pohibaba]

No, I'm simply suggesting that stopping the torturing of terrorists will do absolutely nothing to improve our standing in the Muslim world as there are plenty of reasons for them to hate us even without that. I'm suggesting we do a complete 180 on our foreign policy and stop torture.

Do you understand the ignorance of that statement? For change to occur, it has to begin somewhere. As much as I'd love to wake up tomorrow to find a complete 180 on our foreign policy, you're living in a fantasy.

Your statement has just implied that you do not believe torture is negative. If stopping torture will do absolutely nothing to improve their opinion of us, then by inference it must be doing absolutely nothing to damage our reputation with them. Are you suggesting that they don't care about torture, that it doesn't upset them at all?

As I said, for change to occur, it has to begin somewhere. For change to occur, issues must be addressed and debated. For our foreign policy to improve, we have to address problems and work to change them. You've just labeled a discussion on torture irrelevant because our foreign policy is currently out of sync with American values. How the fuck do you realign that policy if you aren't willing to discuss corresponding issues?

You've made a nice blanket statement that ultimately amounts to nothing. Good luck changing the world by snapping your fingers.

I'm saying that they currently have justifiable reasons for hating us and those reasons aren't going to go away with us stopping torture. Of course torture isn't justifiable, you'd have to be a moron to think it is. I'm labeling the argument of torture irrelevant because if we changed our foreign policy it simply wouldn't be necessary anymore. And yes, change could happen tomorrow (ok, to be fair, it could happen next January, but that's close enough for me).

[Beckwin]

And yes, change could happen tomorrow (ok, to be fair, it could happen next January, but that's close enough for me).

oh who the fuck are you trying to kid here

[Xavier]

I'm saying that they currently have justifiable reasons for hating us and those reasons aren't going to go away with us stopping torture. Of course torture isn't justifiable, you'd have to be a moron to think it is. I'm labeling the argument of torture irrelevant because if we changed our foreign policy it simply wouldn't be necessary anymore. And yes, change could happen tomorrow (ok, to be fair, it could happen next January, but that's close enough for me).

I feel like there is a huge disconnect between what you want and the reality of implementing it. Nobody can simply wake up and reverse our foreign policy. It will take time, patience, and a consensus of leaders.

I was up in New Hampshire during the primary with my school, and attended a breakfast with Bill Richardson. He was asked what his first day in office would entail if he was elected President. He kind of laughed, and said the following: "On day one, I would bring our troops home from Iraq, on day two, I would end our reliance on foreign energy and begin lowering greenhouse gas emissions, on day three I would dramatically improve our education and health care system, and I would take day four off because I've done way too much already." A very tongue in cheek answer, and it definitely got a big laugh, but what he was really saying was that no President can do everything immediately.

I certainly don't believe that ending torture would immediately restore our reputation with the world. The point is that its a start, and you have to start somewhere. You can say that changing our foreign policy would negate any discussion on torture, but that completely ignores the process of changing our foreign policy. I say that discussion on an issue such as torture is the first step to actually implementing change. Things have a way of coalescing once you get the ball rolling, and as I've repeatedly said the ball cannot begin rolling by itself.

[evilbau]

true and good stuff

Ah, but that requires actual thought about how we go about changing things (as in actual things done in real life, reality) and this is the Internet! Land of absolutes and ideals! And Ron Paul will do all that! Its a conspiracy to keep him out of media coverage! rawwwrrrrr

[alt]

My degree was in international relations and stuff like this is very interesting to me, so I just wanted to butt in here for a second, and clear something up.

A lot of people in this thread have been mentioning the Geneva Conventions as the international system of laws that forbid the use of torture in this specific instance, is somewhat misleading.

The Geneva Conventions were written using a very strict, and specific language. The conventions only refer to prisoners of war, or more exactly, soldiers who have been capture during a time of war.

Terrorists, or "enemy combatants", however, strictly speaking are not soldiers, and thus cannot be considered prisoners of war. To be considered a solider and thus a prisoner of war, there are a number of conditions that must be met including: fighting in uniform for an organized army that is part of a recognized and legitimate state. Terrorists, and/or enemy combatants do not fall under these categories, and thus are not prisoners of war if captured.

Since the Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of soldiers captured during a time of war, terrorists do not fall under its protections. Terrorists and/or enemy combatants as they are now being called, are in a sort of gray, limbo-area in regards to the law both domestically and internationally.

[Beckwin]

The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

[Xavier]

The Geneva Conventions were written using a very strict, and specific language. The conventions only refer to prisoners of war, or more exactly, soldiers who have been capture during a time of war.

Since the Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of soldiers captured during a time of war, terrorists do not fall under its protections.

That is simply not true.

[alt]

The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

[quote:3lgxu6p8]In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

[/quote:3lgxu6p8]

Unfortunately the International Committee of the Red Cross, is not an international body of laws and/or treaties. And thus there is no true backing force behind its commentaries, aside from how it may sway international opinion. Much similar too, and somewhat along the lines of Amnesty International, who has released very similar statements.

[alt]

The Geneva Conventions were written using a very strict, and specific language. The conventions only refer to prisoners of war, or more exactly, soldiers who have been capture during a time of war.

Since the Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of soldiers captured during a time of war, terrorists do not fall under its protections.

That is simply not true.

Whether we believe it is true or not, is beside the point. That is the stance the United States is taking. The United States, very clearly does not consider terrorists prisoners of war, nor does it consider them civilians. As I said earlier, the term "enemy combatant" has been created.

This is how the current administration has justified, holding many "enemy combatant" indefinitely at various sites outside the U.S., such as Guantanamo Bay, and without bringing any formal charges, or even allowing the accused knowledge of the evidence against them.

[archibaldcrane]

Similar to saying that "waterboarding isn't torture", the phrase "enemy combatant" was devised by the administration in an attempt to weasel out of international legal restrictions. It doesn't carry any particular legal weight, but is basically invented in order to pretend that there are people with 0 rights, with whom anything and everything can be done, without recourse. Until these assertions are challenged in the courts, they will continue to exist, and the Democratic Congress doesn't have the backbone to properly challenge them.

It's a very clever and very sick game that our government plays with our legal system - it truly disgusts me as an American.

Article 5
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 (which would make them classified as a POW), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

If they are, after a competent tribunal, determined not to a Prisoner of War, then they can be granted status as a "protected person" (which terrorists in our current conflict would not be, as they aren't soldiers of a nation-state), and so they fall into here:

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

That's enough quoting and bolding for me - long story short, no one falls through the gaps to the point where they are not to be treated, at the very least, with humanity.