Torture doesn't work. Film at 11.

Remove all ads!

What, as opposed to cruel and unusual punishment? Unreasonable searches and seizures? An establishment of religion? The free exercise thereof?

And on and on.

The bottom line is that you haven't read this. And you really, really need to.

 

The blonde chick on The View is funnier than Whoopi. As soon as she opens her mouth I can't stop laughing.

 

Ragusa, i think trying to apply a convention signed before 9/11 to the post 9/11 landscape is about as futile as trying to apply todays thinking to the actions that were taken after the Pearl Harbor attacks.

However, using the convention itself, they would argue that the interrogation techniques that they used did not qualify as torture as set forth in the convention.

I agree with them that the techniques don't inflict SEVERE pain or suffering.
As others have stated, it all comes done to the individual country's definition of torture is as opposed to harsh interrogation.

 

Ugh, did God decide to issue a new testament after 9/11 or something? I think you are exaggerating. The US was attacked, and it fought back - that would have happened in 1800, 1900, or 2000.

 

as for trying, you fail. So you really believe that 9/11 changed the world? Have you been sleeping till 9/11? It isn't as there wasn't terror in Reagan's time. So the murder of 3000 people on 9/11 changed everything and what was valid before isn't any longer? You really believe that? Are you really so scared?

Thinking of your list, what I read there was not so much a sensible proposal but an attempt on your part to dream up differentiations as rules that rationalise to you personally something that you want to see done - for whatever reason, revenge and the attitude 'they deserve it' imo not being the least among them - arbitrarily, by mere assertion that the techniques you approve of don't cause 'severe pain and suffering', which is essentially what the Bushies did. It didn't dawn on you it isn't that easy?

The point is that their and your assessment is false, as you, just like them, kid yourself (a) about the already elaborated on (il)legality under domestic and international law, as well as (b) about the severity of the pain and suffering the techniques you find unproblematic cause (especially in combination and over an extended time period), and (c) you assume effectiveness of those techniques and (d) exclude the likely occurrence of errors of identity and (e) the effects of the institutionalisation of torture.

PS: 1978 in Italy leftist terrorists abducted the prime minister, Aldo Moro, the head of government. The Italian authorities held terrorists they could have tortured to perhaps get information that saved him. They did not, and Aldo Moro was murdered. That's the raison d'etat of a democracy. I dare say that the decision to not torture under such circumstances is a much tougher one than to approve torture. Not making compromises can get people killed. That is hard to accept, but a reality nevertheless.

An officer who orders his battalion to storm a fortified hill knows he probably sends people to their death. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no perfect safety from terror, and torture won't give it to you. A democracy fighting against terror will inevitably take losses. But as, during the abduction of Aldo Moro, General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa of the Italian Carabinieri, reportedly responded to a member of the security services who suggested torture against a suspect:

He was a good man I think. Italy survived losing him, too. America survived 9/11. Can it survive the introduction of torture and the wrecking of the constitutional, legal and international norms against torture and remain America?

 

Wow! It makes even me angry that we did this. It makes me mad, especially after all the phony talk about how we were there to "save the Iragi people" from Saddam. I just don't know how anyone can support how the previous adminstration behaved and still claim to have a shred of human decency in them. I'm glad they are not going to release these photos if they are that bad. Obama is right: why put the world through the spectacle of anymore American atrocities. It's time to put the past - and the responsiblility - where it belongs. History will judge these SOBs for what they are.

I'm sure we will hear that it was "just a few bad apples." Let me start with those bad apples: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30978967/

Edit: And yes, by all means, blame the people we raped and tortured in Iraq for our own incompetence at not catching those REALLY responsible for 9/11.

 

That's exactly how I see it. If they did put thiese guys on trial, then they would be the evidence that the US, and many in the rest of world, would need to see.

The correct remedy would be a war crimes trial. It is a sad thing to realize that it will never happen, despite the fact that Cheney has the gall to walk around this country and declaring that we need more of the same. It's only by the grace of Obama - the man he keeps belittling along the way - that he's not in prison where he belongs, IMO. So much for justice if you are not American, as you point out.

 

No, you three are all wrong. It can't possibly have anything to do with policies and guidance on detention and interrogation that created a climate of 'everything goes'. It was all a few bad apples, who acted unprofessionally. What you liberal sissies don't understand in your deeply partisan urges to smear the Bush administration's pure-as-snow record, the torture debate has been solved for years, with the punishment of Lynndie England and James Graner. Also, don't forget that raping those Iraqis probably made America safer.

 

I just felt I had to add that a certain level of abuse is unavoidable if you send your boys to war. If you are willing to send them to kill people you must accept a few rapes and beatings.

Whether this what the US has done in Iraq goes beyond that I really do not know, Abu Ghraid sure felt like it was intentional by the top people.

 

You have to draw the line somewhere between what happens and what is acceptable, joacqin. The fact that looting, raping, and other abuse happens and has always happened in wartime does not mean that it should not be punished, if only for the sake of discipline and appearances. Sure, it is only natural that officers cover for their men (and women) somewhat, but there has to be a limit on what is ok for soldiers to do, even during war.

 

Yes, there is this unimportant little something that they call service regulations. In the US they iirc call it Uniform Code of Military Justice ... that in sub chapter X lists a number of punitive articles, including ...

... let me channel John Yoo ... there is no passage in the USMJ that says that Iraqi boys are persons, ergo ... or so

 

The hidden agenda of my point is that as I see things, if you committ your troops to war and support that then you are supporting all kinds of abuse cause that is what war is and will happen sure as water is wet. No amount of codes or laws will stop an unstable adrenaline full 19 year old who have been taught that the people around him are less than human from seeing them as less than human and thus act accordingly. Sure he should be punished but the real crime happened a lot earlier behind around a table somewhere and by the voters who put those persons around that table.

 

What the hell is with the 'not his wife' qualifiers? Rape is bad unless the victim is your wife, in which case she's de facto given you permission in perpetuity and it is therefore not possible to rape her?

 

Yes, I do see your point. I just don't see that as an inevitable conclusion, that is, I don't share your Weltschmerz

It has IMO been described best by ret. Col. Pat Lang (slightly edited):

The disgraceful behaviour at Abu Ghraib is the manifestation of this and such dynamics. Graner and England must have known perfectly well that they were violating the UCMJ. The good Col. is absolutely right in his analysis.

What you describe is what's happening in Africa with the children armies, or generally in armies that have no senior enlisted leaders, and thus have difficulties enforcing discipline. In western armies it is the job officers and more senior (that is, more mature and experienced) enlisted personnel to keep their boys in line. Think of it as adult supervision. It is leadership and discipline that made the difference.

At the Eastern Front German police and SS units massacred civilians. Sometimes Wehrmacht troops participated, sometimes their officers outright refused such orders. In that respect it is interesting to read the story about Major Alexander. He said that under he ordered his troops to not use the clearly abusive tactics - at a time they were authorised from above and used by neighbouring units. That means he had a choice in his actions. If that is so, the others had a choice as well.

In any respect Abu Ghraib was a leadership failure as well. Every breakdown of discipline in an army is also a leadership failure, nut just by the people at Abu Ghraib, but from those who ordered the tortuous tactics without considering the corrosive effect they had.

It is because of that that the leaders at Abu Ghraib were not severely punished. In the court martial proceedings they had to undergo their judges were perfectly familiar with the orders from the senior leadership in the Bush administration and didn't want to punish people down the line of command who would have been punished severely had they refused to obey these (illegal) orders. To refuse to obey an order is a serious offence in the military that has serious consequences. One has to think of what conscientious objectors have to undergo in the US if they take objection to the duties they are ordered to perform. Rumsfeld and his goons steam rolled dissent. In the case of Lt. Watada the proceedings took years, and it iirc needed Obama's intervention to prevent him from being punished.

 

AMaster - good point - I can only assume that code was written in a time where your description would essentially be correct...

Anyway, back to the topic at hand... it appears that Saddam's rape rooms were put to good use. It makes me sick. So much for justice indeed.

Bad pun? (emphasis mine)

 

No, you and Aldeth are both wrong my informed guess is that then it is just not a military (i.e. disciplinary) offence but an ordinary criminal one. I presume T2 can help us out on this.

 

The short explanation is that the UCMJ was written a long time ago. If they ever get around to revisiting it, that and other passages would likely be changed, too.

 

Drew hit it on the head. In 1950 (when the UCMJ was written) it was impossible to convict a man of raping his wife -- as long as he didn't kill her a man could do what he wanted. The UCMJ was written by members of congress who were unwilling to change the status quo. Congress is required to make changes to it.

While civil law has changed over the past 59 years, the UCMJ has remained as is. The only significant legislation/executive order that has changed the UCMJ in any way was "don't ask, don't tell" -- which really did not change the UCMJ at all, it merely allowed homosexuals in the military so long as they do not pursue homosexual relations while in the military (committing a homosexual act is still punishable under the sodomy article).

I've seen the 'not his wife' clause used on members of the military who have affairs with spouses of military members. It doesn't matter that it is two consenting adults and is not against the law anywhere else, the military will still convict by courts martial in such cases. To be honest, I've only seen this pursued when the spouse is an officer's spouse -- I guess enlisted spouse's are assumed to be promiscuous (one of many double standards in the military). Of course, married men who "have a woman in every port" are never subjected to this article even though it applies (unless one of the women is an officer's wife).