Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Kuya]

There's really no content to your point however, if it can even be called one at all. You're not attacking specific reasons as to why this might not work other than suppositions, and then making the quaint little remark that puts everyone responsible under the umbrella of the president to try and imply the idea that no one will get prosecuted, even though you paradoxically say some, somehow, might get prosecuted.

What is your argument? What are you critiquing? Make your argument concrete instead of making these shallow remarks.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Got to love Neocon logic. When it comes to the Border and Immigration "We must kick all the Illegals out its the law!" But when it comes to torture "Why can't we put the past behind us?"

The constitution isn't a suicide pact, which I would assume would mean the same for any law.

[quannum]

the trump card against these morons (the retard above me) is to quote reagan ( modern day jesus amirite) to them. then they are left with 2 mutually exclusive options: siding with ronald reagan OR siding with the national republican party of 2009

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

underline added to get past the ridiculous argument that waterboarding is or is not torture.

What do you people even stand for anymore?

• It is torture as evidenced by us prosecuting japanese for the same method back in WWII.
• GOD himself .. i mean Reagan was against it.
• It doesn't produce good information, so you can't even say "It works you silly libruhls"

If you want actual data on the 3rd bullet, just look into this abu zabayduh dude. The FBI got some real intelligence from him including the name of KSM from traditional rapport-building techniques, he immediately clammed up and became a non-good source of information as soon as the CIA began its torture program on him.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I bet Bush would have said the same thing before 9/11.

[Rhinox]

The constitution isn't a suicide pact, which I would assume would mean the same for any law.

Gonna after those responsible for possibly destroying America's credibility =! suicide pact.

I'd argue that ignoring what happen and going on as business as usual would instead being leading us to an actual suicide pact.

Please tell me your not biting into the neocon Fear mongering are you Swampy?

[Rhinox]

Btw Dick Chaney got caught up in a lie . The information gathered from KSM or the other guy did not stop the attack on los angeles. Unless of course we posses a time machine otherwise the timelines do not match.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I read there were two different attacks and thus the time-line holds. And I don't know if I gave into the fear mongering until Obama releases everything.

[Rhinox]

I read there were two different attacks and thus the time-line holds. And I don't know if I gave into the fear mongering until Obama releases everything.

Of course you did.

Just out of curiosity. where do you stand on Waterboarding? Torture y/n?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If there's reason to believe we're going to be attacked and the person is someone like KSM, then I think were still treating them better than they treat their prisoners if we waterboard them. So yes.

[Rhinox]

I read there were two different attacks and thus the time-line holds. And I don't know if I gave into the fear mongering until Obama releases everything.

Btw do you have a source on this? trying hard to find it but coming up siltch so far.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Btw do you have a source on this? trying hard to find it but coming up siltch so far.

It was one of the front page thingies on red-state.

Edit: I didn't see it there, maybe it was the American Spectator blog.

[Rhinox]

Swampy did you seriously use Redstate as a source? there has to be somewhere else or i'm just calling bullshit on that.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Swampy did you seriously use Redstate as a source? there has to be somewhere else or i'm just calling bullshit on that.

That wasn't the original source, they commented on a newspaper story on it and that was where I saw it. I'll look again after I get some stuff done.

[Kuya]

If there's reason to believe we're going to be attacked and the person is someone like KSM, then I think were still treating them better than they treat their prisoners if we waterboard them. So yes.

So basically, you break the law when it is convenient for you to do so, but i'd like to point out a fault with this kind of reasoning that really opened up my understanding of it further. This guy has an interesting opinion on it, here are some pieces:

Torture is wrong. It is condemned by every civilized nation and by international law. There is, however, one situation in which torture might theoretically be morally justified. This is the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario, which in one form or another has been debated by philosophers and ethicists for hundreds of years. Suppose we know that a captive has planted a bomb in a school, which is due to explode in a few hours. The captive refuses to say in what school he planted the bomb. Are we justified in torturing one depraved individual to save the lives of hundreds of innocent children?

In their response, philosophers divide into two camps. The Kantians, those who believe that human beings have a categorical imperative to treat other humans as ends, not as means, say we are never justified in torturing, no matter how legitimate the goal. The Benthamites or utilitarians say that we are justified, because in this case torture is the lesser of two evils.

So the easy argument against torture, that it is ineffective, is wrong. Torture can work. Nor can one simply dismiss the philosophical "ticking bomb" debate. Even ethicists bitterly opposed to torture acknowledge that if that hypothetical situation -- endlessly depicted in Fox's TV show "24" -- actually existed, there would be a compelling moral and philosophical argument for torture in that instance.

But in the real world, the "ticking bomb" situation never arises. It is never the case that we know we can automatically avert mass slaughter by torturing someone. Reality is not that neat. Guilt and knowledge are not established in advance. Those whom we torture may or may not be planning nefarious deeds. As the British political scientist Henry Shue pointed out in his classic 1978 essay "Torture," "Notice how unlike the circumstances of an actual choice about torture the philosopher's example is. The proposed victim of our torture is not someone we suspect of planting the device: he is the perpetrator. He is not some pitiful psychotic making one last play for attention: He did plant the device. The wiring is not backwards, the mechanism is not jammed: the device will destroy the city if not deactivated." Shue concludes that "The distance between the situations which must be concocted in order to have a plausible case of morally permissible torture and the situations which actually occur is, if anything, further reason why the existing prohibitions against torture should remain and should be strengthened by making torture an international crime."

As Shue suggests, the "ticking bomb" situation should be left in the classroom, for ethicists and philosophers to ponder. It has nothing to do with the real world. And those who invoke it are leading society down a fatal slippery slope, which ends with the wholesale justification of torture. Their arguments, which appeal to and are based in fear and anger, not considered analysis, would return us to the Middle Ages.

But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Hayden and Mukasey are correct, and that torturing Zubaydah led him to give information that resulted in the arrest of KSM and other terrorists. That still would not constitute a "ticking bomb" situation. No one can say whether those captured would have carried out other terrorist attacks. There are too many unknown factors. Dick Cheney recently argued that classified documents will show that the use of torture stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks. But unless those documents reveal a "24"-like situation in which the use of torture somehow actually stops an imminent attack from taking place, a situation that has never come up in the real world, his statement is false. Breaking up terror networks is not the same thing as "stopping" terrorist attacks.

Torture is not morally justifiable. In addition, it has severe negative consequences. Once a nation embraces torture, it forfeits any claim to a moral high ground. It becomes no better than those it is fighting. It may win a battle, but it will lose the war. As America struggles to win hearts and minds in the Arab/Muslim world, the use of torture is more harmful in the long run than any "high-value" intelligence gained by its use. And U.S. torture not only builds hatred in the Muslim world, it turns our allies against us -- and erodes us from within. As historian Horne pointed out, "When the news came out in France of what the army was doing, it caused such a revulsion that it led directly to the French capitulation. And not only revulsion in France, but revulsion here. JFK, as a senator, took up the Algerian cause quite strongly partly because of the human rights issue." Horne's conclusion: "I feel myself absolutely clear in my own mind that you do not, whatever the excuse, use torture, let alone abuse."

The French thing was this, in the same article:

During France's brutal war in Algeria, the colonial power used torture effectively. As historian Alistair Horne, the author of the classic analysis of the French-Algerian war, "A Savage War of Peace," told me in a 2007 interview, "In Algeria, the French used torture -- as opposed to abuse -- very effectively as an instrument of war. They had some success with it; they did undoubtedly get some intelligence from the use of torture." That intelligence included information about future terrorist strikes and the infrastructure of terror networks in Algiers.

Led astray by leaders who played on their fear and anger, Americans have been deaf and blind and mute for too long. It is past time for our country to say an absolute no. No torture today, no torture tomorrow, no torture ever.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So basically that guys argument relies on the belief that there is NEVER a ticking time bomb scenario? Yea fucking right.

[Kuya]

Honestly, if you still insist on torture, there is no convincing you. The arguments laid out are already too massive, so let's summarize.

A-Torture was ineffective when compared to rapport building, bringing into question why it would be used in the first place, which can be evidenced by the Abu Zhubaida case.

B- Torture is illegal.

C- Torture is immoral.

D- The ticking time bomb scenario only exists on TV, i see that you did not pay any attention to what the article said because it was not convenient for you (much like you think that the law is to be thrown away when you don't like it), but evidently the scenario never happens, and if it did. It is too unrealistic, because situations are never that square cut and certain. You never know who knows what, because if you did, you would have been trying to stop the terrorist attack in the first place, you make the mistake of torturing because you don't know, and because you don't know, you will make mistakes.

The debate about the pros/cons of torture is over.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Honestly, if you still insist on torture, there is no convincing you. The arguments laid out are already too massive, so let's summarize.

A-Torture was ineffective when compared to rapport building, bringing into question why it would be used in the first place, which can be evidenced by the Abu Zhubaida case.

B- Torture is illegal.

C- Torture is immoral.

D- The ticking time bomb scenario only exists on TV, i see that you did not pay any attention to what the article said because it was not convenient for you (much like you think that the law is to be thrown away when you don't like it), but evidently the scenario never happens, and if it did. It is too unrealistic, because situations are never that square cut and certain. You never know who knows what, because if you did, you would have been trying to stop the terrorist attack in the first place, you make the mistake of torturing because you don't know, and because you don't know, you will make mistakes.

The debate about the pros/cons of torture is over.

I'm just happy people like you weren't in charge the past 8 years.

[Correction]

I'm just happy people like you weren't in charge the past 8 years.

Yeah because then we might have had humane treatment of prisoners at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay. Someone had to show those darkies their place amirite?

[Rhinox]

I'm just happy people like you weren't in charge the past 8 years.

oh god. lol


This isn't some Tom clancy fucking novel Swampy. That isn't how the real world works

[archibaldcrane]

I'm just happy people like you weren't in charge the past 8 years.

Are you really that happy that one dude was waterboarded 186 times, and would it bring you terrible agony if that had been averted?

If any miniscule gains were made at all from torture, were they really worth all that has resulted?

You really think so?