Jump to content

democrats set to release CIA "torture" report today


cooltigger21

Recommended Posts

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative,

judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under

its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a

threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency,

may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be

invoked as a justification of torture.

Signed by the U.S. under President Reagan 1984

You forgot Article 1:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

and Article 16:

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official

capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just curious. How many feel these tactics are no longer being utilized by the CIA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. How many feel these tactics are no longer being utilized by the CIA?

I can guarantee they aren't being used now and no intelligence agent will ever use anything outside of saying please pretty please anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. How many feel these tactics are no longer being utilized by the CIA?

I can guarantee they aren't being used now and no intelligence agent will ever use anything outside of saying please pretty please anymore.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. Why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. How many feel these tactics are no longer being utilized by the CIA?

I can guarantee they aren't being used now and no intelligence agent will ever use anything outside of saying please pretty please anymore.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. Why?

Well do you think this administration would do that? Ain't no way. I think the intelligence people would want to but they have been hamstrung by the administration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats are doing this hoping to fire up their anti war kook base and they'll accomplish that. On the other hand they are going to piss off the rest of the American people even more than they already have. Their party is going to be tied to wanting to weaken America in the face of our enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. How many feel these tactics are no longer being utilized by the CIA?

I can guarantee they aren't being used now and no intelligence agent will ever use anything outside of saying please pretty please anymore.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. Why?

Well do you think this administration would do that? Ain't no way. I think the intelligence people would want to but they have been hamstrung by the administration.

Think there is a remote chance you are wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President.

This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ?

It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question.

The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote-to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-he-s-doing-is-good-ideology-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-351619.jpg

So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Correct. Neutralizing threats is not against the law, torture is. Are you trying to suggest that it is alright to torture someone if you were going to shoot them otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President.

This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ?

It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question.

The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable.

"Rhetorical" means "not expecting an answer". I was expecting an answer which is why I said it wasn't rhetorical. You gave an answer that didn't address my question. I didn't ask you about torture. I asked, "What would you do ?".

Let's try again. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote-to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-he-s-doing-is-good-ideology-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-351619.jpg

So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Poorly phrased question.

That's the essence of what you've stated. You said that you would shoot them on the battlefield, just not torture them. One kills the enemy, the other doesn't. One is the ultimate humiliation, the other is recoverable. You don't see the irony in your statement ?

The question wasn't poorly phrased. It was exact and direct because those are the real options that you avert. I state my question again, So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President.

This isn't a rhetorical question. What would you do ?

It IS a rhetorical question, but I'll address it anyway. Why would torture coerce him to change his mind in the next few hours? Or the next few days? What assurance do I have that he is going to tell something useful? What assurance do I have that this plot is, in fact, real? How did the CIA manage to get this suspect in custody, without any other useful knowledge and leads? Are there no other means of using the information that they do possess to trick him into revealing something useful? Ultimately, it is an unrealistic example presented as a rhetorical question.

The problem I find with such logic as presented in your question is that, for example, torturing terrorists is acceptable if there is even the possibility that 3,000 Americans could be saved, but negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable, regardless of that same possibility. Personally, I think they are both unacceptable.

"Rhetorical" means "not expecting an answer". I was expecting an answer which is why I said it wasn't rhetorical. You gave an answer that didn't address my question. I didn't ask you about torture. I asked, "What would you do ?".

Let's try again. "You are now elected President for 24 hours. You have been told by the CIA that they have a suspect in custody with info about the method and exact time that 3,000 people are to be killed in the next few hours, only he isn't willing to talk. What do you do ? Time is ticking. Tell us what to do Mr. President."

What are my options within the scope of law?

EDIT: I did answer your question. I answered it with a few questions I would expect a President to ask his advisors (and the CIA) before reaching a decision. And it is still a rhetorical question. You asked a question expecting a difficult or impossible answer, in order to make a point. Considering the context of the conversation, it's obvious where you're going with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote-to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-he-s-doing-is-good-ideology-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-351619.jpg

So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Poorly phrased question.

That's the essence of what you've stated. You said that you would shoot them on the battlefield, just not torture them. One kills the enemy, the other doesn't. One is the ultimate humiliation, the other is recoverable. You don't see the irony in your statement ?

The question wasn't poorly phrased. It was exact and direct because those are the real options that you avert. I state my question again, So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Jus ad Bello. Once removed from the battlefield via capture or surrender, he should not get tortured. Sent to Gitmo? Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote-to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-he-s-doing-is-good-ideology-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-351619.jpg

So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Poorly phrased question.

That's the essence of what you've stated. You said that you would shoot them on the battlefield, just not torture them. One kills the enemy, the other doesn't. One is the ultimate humiliation, the other is recoverable. You don't see the irony in your statement ?

The question wasn't poorly phrased. It was exact and direct because those are the real options that you avert. I state my question again, So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Jus ad Bello. Once removed from the battlefield via capture or surrender, he should not get tortured. Sent to Gitmo? Absolutely.

While off topic, what about indefinite detention at Gitmo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote-to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-he-s-doing-is-good-ideology-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-351619.jpg

So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Poorly phrased question.

That's the essence of what you've stated. You said that you would shoot them on the battlefield, just not torture them. One kills the enemy, the other doesn't. One is the ultimate humiliation, the other is recoverable. You don't see the irony in your statement ?

The question wasn't poorly phrased. It was exact and direct because those are the real options that you avert. I state my question again, So it's good to shoot the enemy combatant, just don't torture him ?

Jus ad Bello. Once removed from the battlefield via capture or surrender, he should not get tortured. Sent to Gitmo? Absolutely.

While off topic, what about indefinite detention at Gitmo?

Negative. Military tribunal as soon as possible or release once the relevant conflict has ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While off topic, what about indefinite detention at Gitmo?

Negative. Military tribunal as soon as possible or release once the relevant conflict has ended.

That puts at 2 for 2 in agreement here. That said, why should a military tribunal or release occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against torture. Sorry if that puts me out of favor with most here.

Torture is torture, whether it is performed on three people, twenty people, one hundred people, or eight thousand. Torture is the kind of immoral thing that the United States is supposed to stand against. It separates us from people like the Nazi's, or the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin specifically. More importantly, it is supposed to be something that is banned by law. Water-boarding is torture. It is not only distasteful, it is torture. Sleep deprivation and stress positions are also torture. All three would be classified as torture by the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

I can understand the urgent need for information in what some would call "desperate times", but torture is a line of moral principle that should never be crossed by any country that claims to support human rights. That there are still American citizens that are alright with their government having officially sanctioned torture is something I find truly disturbing.

I am with these guys ^^^^^

Torture is WRONG! That's the bottom line. Everything I've ever been taught about Christian Principles as well as the principles this nation was supposedly founded upon tells me torture is wrong. And there is no magic line delineating "acceptable" means of inflicting abuse vs."unacceptable". Water-boarding and sleep deprivation are torture just as much as pulling teeth, beatings, or electric shock. Like Strychnine, I am shocked that anyone can defend such actions and claim to be American or Christian.

Torture is also ineffective. The Spanish Inquisition proved that a torture victim will say anything, confess to anything, or make up whatever lies he/she thinks will appease the torturer, to avoid further torture. (Although I imagine that was obvious centuries before the Inquisition to many people, and has been re-affirmed many times since.)

To quote John McCain from the Senate floor today:

Republican Sen. John McCain, who was tortured and spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said the Senate report on CIA interrogation practices proves what he knows from "personal experience" -- that prisoner abuse is ineffective and greatly damaging to America.

"The use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies -- our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights which are protected by international conventions the United State not only joined, but for the most part authored," McCain said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

http://www.nbcnews.c...erience-n264806

It disgusts me that anyone would condone torture, or that anyone would be more worried about politics and any political agenda behind this report than the contents of the report. Not to trivialize the subject, but I do find it somewhat analogous to those Bama fans who more offended that "secret witnesses" (e.g., Phil Fulmer) turned in and report on the Tide than they were that their school was doing illegal things during the Albert Means affair.

Finally, to those who say this is merely a political game on the part of the Dems to embarrass Republicans before they take their new seats in the Senate: Wouldn't it have made more sense to get the report out before the elections? If there really was a Democratic strategist who said "Guys, we've got some data that could be really embarrassing to the Republicans, but let's wait until after the election to release it", I hope the Dems didn't pay him much for his political "acumen" and have fired him since!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While off topic, what about indefinite detention at Gitmo?

Negative. Military tribunal as soon as possible or release once the relevant conflict has ended.

That puts at 2 for 2 in agreement here. That said, why should a military tribunal or release occur?

I'm no JAG but tribunals are reserved for those who have comitted a terrorist act against us. Release would be for the combatants captured during battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no JAG but tribunals are reserved for those who have comitted a terrorist act against us. Release would be for the combatants captured during battle.

That wasn't the purpose of the question, so I'll re-phrase. Why should a military tribunal or release occur, as opposed to the convenience of indefinite detention? If neither military tribunal or release are applicable, should they be referred to the civilian court system instead of indefinite detention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Message to the Senate Transmitting the ConventionAgainst Torture and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment

May 20, 1988

To the Senate of the United States:

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.

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.

In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification. The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

May 20, 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...