CIA and Torture

[nacktman]

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Found this poll on another site and it disturbed me.

The question posed was:

Should the CIA be exempt from the Congressional Ban on torture?

I wondered how fellow nudists felt on this topic.
After a week I will compare where the poll on the other site is and where this one is.

This could certainly be a fascinating topic -- also a very timely one, and certainly NOT an existentional one. John McCain, who was tortured during his 5 years as a POW in Vietnam, has put forth the anti-torture bill and has the support of 90 other Senators (Democrats and Republicans) but 9 oppose it (all Republicans to my knowledge).

However, also opposing the move to ban torture is President Bush who says he will veto it -- the first bill he has ever vetoed.

The reasoning for having torture is in the event that there is about to be a major terrorist attack, e.g. a nuclear bomb on a timer somewhere in Washington D.C., and the U.S. authorities have the guy who knows where the bomb is and he isn't talking.

Though there are many arguments against why torture is pointless in this scenario, I have my own clever one. Suppose torture is banned by the bill, the above scenario takes place, and the U.S. authorities believe torture is the only way to get the info out. My take is that, in such an extreme case, the authorities will torture them and get a pardon -- noone is going to get a criminal record using illegal means to stop a nuclear bomb.

What we do want to do is ensure that torture is not used for non-critical purposes. Thank goodness for politicians like John McCain.

[Guest]

I can't believe anyone would even consider making torture legal.

What are they thinking?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by hm0504:
My take is that, in such an extreme case, the authorities will torture them and get a pardon -- noone is going to get a criminal record using illegal means to stop a nuclear bomb.

In such an extreme case, I imagine they would be willing to serve time. That might be just the right compromise - only torture if it is important enough that you are willing to spend 20 years in prison.

-Mark

[jon71]

This is just one more example of Bush/Cheney having no conscience at all.

[KirkOntario]

How does surrendering help support our troops, Jon?

[NudeAl]

In such an extreme case, I imagine they would be willing to serve time. That might be just the right compromise -

Then again maybe they'll just take the next flight to Cleveland and tell the politicians good luck.

[jon71]

Who said anything about surrendering. Who would we surrender to? We should simply leave a quaqmire that has NOTHING to do with national security. Good Americans are dying for NOTHING. That is an act of treason. Bush should be sent to Nuremburg and anyone who has ever supported the Iraq war should be deeply ashamed of themselves. The blood of 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are on Bush's hands. That's more murder than Bid Laden is responsible for. I've said it before but when it comes to evil Bin laden is Bush's understudy.

[nacktman]

Ich hore den Hauptschutz, innen zu marschieren...Duetschlander innen Sudatenland 1935.

Alle mogliche Mittel fur dir Reich, bedeute ich Republick...Amerikaner, krank innen die koff 2005.

Oops was that my outside voice?

[Ken Palmer]

This is rather interesting. I think most of us will agree that the sole issue of torture is pretty much on the grisly side. I guess I would ask myself this question; could I actually do this to someone? But like you said, we have to take into account the extreme case scenarios you mentioned. For example; if a bomb was about to be detonated in D.C. or worse a nuclear bomb somewhere in the country, what would we do? It's a combination of a judgement call and a soul searcher type deal. We may find it necessary, but can we actually picture ourselves doing it? This is my view.

Ken Palmer

Originally posted by hm0504:

quote:

Originally posted by nacktman:
Found this poll on another site and it disturbed me.

The question posed was:

Should the CIA be exempt from the Congressional Ban on torture?

I wondered how fellow nudists felt on this topic.
After a week I will compare where the poll on the other site is and where this one is.

This could certainly be a fascinating topic -- also a very timely one, and certainly NOT an existentional one. John McCain, who was tortured during his 5 years as a POW in Vietnam, has put forth the anti-torture bill and has the support of 90 other Senators (Democrats and Republicans) but 9 oppose it (all Republicans to my knowledge).

However, also opposing the move to ban torture is President Bush who says he will veto it -- the first bill he has ever vetoed.

The reasoning for having torture is in the event that there is about to be a major terrorist attack, e.g. a nuclear bomb on a timer somewhere in Washington D.C., and the U.S. authorities have the guy who knows where the bomb is and he isn't talking.

Though there are many arguments against why torture is pointless in this scenario, I have my own clever one. Suppose torture is banned by the bill, the above scenario takes place, and the U.S. authorities believe torture is the only way to get the info out. My take is that, in such an extreme case, the authorities will torture them and get a pardon -- noone is going to get a criminal record using illegal means to stop a nuclear bomb.

What we do want to do is ensure that torture is not used for non-critical purposes. Thank goodness for politicians like John McCain.

[jon71]

It would not matter how extreme the case is. In addition to being morally abhorrent the fact is from a tactical standpoint torture doesn't work. Operatives are trained to resist or lie when tortured. Sometimes intelligence agencies use this to give dis-information to other countries, sort of a trojan horse thing. If it were an extreme case the thing to do would be to use sodium penthenol or something in that vein (pun intended).

[P.J.]

The idea of legal torture is an ugly thought.

Unfortunately, in these uncertain times, there is absolutely no easy answer.

Prohibit torture and let the ACLU interfere with the interrogations of terrorists and a lot more innocent people, from our troops to foreign civilians will die.

Legalize torture and maybe our safety will be in jeopardy.

Although there may be some cases where some sort of torture, as last resort might be necessary to force an enemy to give up information, such tactics must be limited to acquiring information that is vital in the prevention of the deaths of our servicemen and innocent civilians.

The Geveva Convention rightfully forbids torture. I agree with the Geneva Convention, as far as the humane treatment of military combatants is concerned.

What I do not support is the idea of extending the rules of the Geneva Convention to include the terrorists. They are not the sort of enemy who deserve any of the respect normally given to our opponents. Terrorists are vermin who are more despicable than the enemy who were captured out of uniform and were consequently executed as spies.

Torture is ugly, but not as despicable as the vermin who slither into the public and murder innocent bystanders.

I personally know servicemen who are currently posted at Guantanomo Bay as well as Iraq. I think that they, and not some life-long civilians, are the ones who can truly comment on this issue.

As a Conservative, a veteran and a military retiree, I find this question on CIA and Torture to be both disturbing and difficult to answer.

Maybe if I acquire more information on this subject, I'll be able to answer this poll.

[Guest]

Here is some information. Torture doesn't work and is totally unreliable.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9958544/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html

"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."

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by P.J.:
What I do not support is the idea of extending the rules of the Geneva Convention to include the terrorists.

The problem with creating a 'vermin' class of criminals whom the safeguards against inhumane treatment don't apply is that eventually everyone becomes part of that class.

Any crime can become 'terrorism', and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Patriot Act. For example we recently learned that by using the Act the FBI has been issuing at least 30,000 National Security Letters a year allowing it to access the phone and financial letters of ordinary people without a warrant or a judge's approval. Under the Patriot act the subjects of a warrantless NSL don't even have to be under suspicion - these are fishing expeditions. The constitutional rights of ordinary US citizens have been stripped away - everyone is part of the 'vermin class' now with respect to NSL's.

Any person, including an American citizen can be declared an unlawful combatant at the whim of the administration - there are NO limits to who can be declared such - and held indefinitely with no charges, no representation and no rights whatsoever. At least two American citizens have been detained as unlawful combatants, the administration refuses to say how many more US citizens have had their human rights stripped from them or on what grounds - it is a government secret.

Clearly, if torture is permitted for a 'vermin class', soon everyone those in authority want to torture will be vermin. At Abu Ghraib abuse and torture were used not for interrogation, but to 'prepare' detainees for interrogation. Nevermind that the majority of those detained were innocent of anything, or that many of them were never even interrogated after their torture.

Excepting a 'vermin class' from human rights and prohibitions against torture isn't a slippery slope to a brutal police state - it is a racetrack.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

Any crime can become 'terrorism', and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Patriot Act.

Exactly. George Orwell is probably laughing all the way to the milk and honey bar.