New law giving the president more power

[mraynrand]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Wow. Our very own budding FYI right here on Packer Rats.

Who's civil liberties could be eroded? Ask Maher Arar. He'll have a good answer.

Since when did Maher Arar become an American citizen? Should our bill of rights extend to foreigners the same as to citizens? Of course there are some laws and some international agreements that we're obligated to adhere to, but in this case, the U.S. acted on intelligence from the RCMP that he had ties to al Quaeda types. As a natural born Syrian who emigrated to Canada, they deported him to Syria. Also, officials visited Arar seven times in Damascus before he claimed he was being tortured. The officials saw no evidence of torture and the only evidence remains the guy's own testimony.

This case doesn't even address the Bill in question, and it confuses the issue by comparing apples and oranges (Citizens versus foreigners). The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

And Joe Mailman - answer the question. How many Americans have had their civil liberities infringe upon by this bill?

Finally, I hate to say it, but there will be mistakes made in trying to pursue and track these terrorist types. I don't like it at all, but it's the reality of war, and is even more difficult in a war against insidious terrorists. But, as Osama has said himself, they are relying on our squeamishness and our plethora of groups dedicated to undermining our efforts to pursue the war on islamic fundamentalist terrorism, like the ACLU and amnesty international.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Finally, I hate to say it, but there will be mistakes made in trying to pursue and track these terrorist types. I don't like it at all, but it's the reality of war, and is even more difficult in a war against insidious terrorists. But, as Osama has said himself, they are relying on our squeamishness and our plethora of groups dedicated to undermining our efforts to pursue the war on islamic fundamentalist terrorism, like the ACLU and amnesty international.

The war on terrorism will last forever. It's always been a threat and always will be. Our goal should be to limit its power. We need to get the civilized world to help us isolate those countries who support it, strike military targets when they become a legit threat, and stand as an example of freedom and justice to normal people living in these strongly fundamental countries. State sanctioned torture does not help us in this.
Also, I can't believe you used Osama's statements to demonize groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International. Sure, sometimes they represent the rights on the worst, but that's because they believe in the rights of all humanity. They are a stand as a check against possible abuses of government, even though their only power is to persuade the population to their beliefs. There are so many things about our country that Osama and his group can exploit. We're a country of checks and balances to power, not a totalitarian regime. If we got rid of the legislative and judicial branches of government, it would be a lot harder for terrorists to take advantage of our "squemishness". We could get rid of citizens' right to protest and disolve the free press. That would make it a lot harder for Osama to exploit our problem with groups trying undermine the war on terror. How far are we willing to go to be safe? Fuck Osama and what he says about our freedom to disent!

[mraynrand]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing supected rapists and murderers.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing suspected rapists and murderers.

[SkinBasket]

You want to quote yourself again? Was that just for dramatic effect?

[SkinBasket]

You want to quote yourself again? Was that just for dramatic effect?

[ahaha]

You want to quote yourself again? Was that just for dramatic effect?

It happened when I edited my original. I had misspelled suspected. I don't know why it did that.

[mraynrand]

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing supected rapists and murderers.

I see. So AFTER the sleeper cell was activated and nuked a city, THEN you'd water board the Sheik. Good thinking.

[ahaha]

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing supected rapists and murderers.

I see. So AFTER the sleeper cell was activated and nuked a city, THEN you'd water board the Sheik. Good thinking.

I didn't answer the question directly because you're trying to use this worst case scenario as justification for state sponsored torture. It's a dangerous way of thinking that could be used to justify all sorts of freedom damaging legislation. I could also use this "worst case scenario" for my side of the argument too, and ask you all sorts of moral dilema questions in an effort to get you to say something positive about my position. Let me just ask you this, if this situation actually happened to you, would the absence of this new legislation actually stop you from water-boarding the shiek?

It has become apparent that nobody on this board cares much about this thread anymore, except for you and I, and maybe SkinBasket. I think it's time to let it die. It's been fun and interesting, and we've made our points on the issue. You may have the last word. I won't respond, unless you make some ridiculous attack on me personally.

[mraynrand]

I'll respond, but I think you effectively bailed out, by saying you wouldn't repond unless I attacked you.

I don't think it's a problem using extreme cases to make a point, especially since the extreme cases are what the issue is all about. There are relatively few terrorists that the US will capture that will have any info worth using extreme interrogation techniques, thus it applies to very few people and to very few situations. It also doesn't apply to U.S. sitizens, so I'm still waiting for those who claim civil rights have been compromised to offer some evidence to suport their claim.

The point I was making is very simple regarding when you might use extreme interrogation techniques, and it provides a general insight into how the two sides in this debate treat the terrorist threat. One side favors a policy of pre-emption - going after the terrorists and getting intelligence to thwart ongoing plots, while the other side favors treating terrorists like criminals, and advocates essntially waiting until after they strike before tracking them down and bringing them to justice. That is pretty much your postion, except that you advocated punitive 'torture' after the culprits were caught (which essentially amounts to cruel and unusual punishment). You did this by advocating water boarding for a criminal who was captured after raping a family member.

I think it's pretty obvious that we are dealing with very determined and very vicious terrorists, and we have to counter them and if necessary, use extreme methods to prevent their destroying our society. I think the WWII analogy is flawed; I think that if captured WWII soldiers or spies were known to have information about an important battle, raid, or other operation, they would have been interrogated using methods best suited to get the intelligence needed to stop the operation. The difference was that was a vastly different conflict with many many more uniformed soldiers and officers that simply were following orders in a conventional war. Most had absolutely no knowledge of critical operations necessitating intense interrogation.

The stakes are higher now, possibly with al quada aspirations of nuking a city within reach. I'm at a bit of a loss to see how a little more severe methods will hurt our union when weighed against possible nuking of cities. And I remind you that you were perfectly willing to 'torture' a convicted rapist, so I son't understand why you'd want to prevent a known al quaeda mastermind from suffering the same fate to prevent the destruction of a city, for example.

[pacfan]

Reframe the question using this extreme scenario...

and its extreme....

Would people still be supportive of the law if John Kerry were president, or any Democrat were to become president?

any thoughts then?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Besides all the legal issues, undermining our morality (yeah, its great to pick and choose which international laws we will follow, torturing the wrong people, losing our credibility as the shiny beacon on the hill, and having OUR troops and citizens tortured, we should look at the effectiveness of torture.

All the experts agree that confessions and information gathered by tortue is highly unreliable.

According to Bush, secret prisons and torture have kept America safe. Not entirely true. While fessing up to the secret prisons, one of the critical things Bush failed to tell the American people was that CIA interrogators learned the hard way that torture was not an effective interrogation method. Books written by Jim Risen and Ron Suskind during the past two years provide compelling accounts that torture against people, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohamad, was ineffective. Suskind recounts that Mohamad, one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attack, was waterboarded, a technique designed to make you feel like you are drowning. Interrogators also threatened to rape and murder his family. Mohamad reportedly replied, "Do what you will, my family will be with God."

Bush also neglected to mention that, despite his previous criticism of the Clinton administration for not fighting terrorism as a military threat, almost all of the Al Qaeda operatives cited in his speech to advocate torture were captured through intelligence operations. In other words, most of the successes we have achieved as a nation in tracking down and capturing terrorists has been the work of law enforcement and and intelligence officials, not our soldiers.

Another thing not mentioned by Bush in the speech concerns the CIA officers who first told Washington Post reporter Dana Priest about the secret prisons; they spoke up because they were alarmed by the administration's violations of the Geneva Accords and its refusal to recognize that torture was counterproductive.

Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) said on NBC's 'Today' show said that torture should not be a part of any U.S. policy.

"Look at the other side of it, if the United States of America is torturing people, or treating them in a cruel or inhumane fashion, then it hurts our image dramatically throughout the world. ... It doesn't work and it harms our image very badly," he said.

Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, "At the end of the day, it's very easy to distinguish between the right thing and the wrong thing to do. If you do the wrong thing, you're not going to get any positive payoff from it and it's going to be of at some great cost," Jacobs said. "We get much more information if we treat people properly."

That means that there is a fine line of how aggressive an interrogator can be, said Jacobs, who recently visited the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay and served in Vietnam.

"You need to be aggressive to get the information you want, but if you treat people inhumanely, they're just going to tell you what they think you want to hear," he said. "They'll do anything just to get the mistreatment to stop, so you get nothing from mistreatment."

Let's look at a couple of prime examples of torture and see if they were effective.

First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable.

Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.

Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.

Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.

Since torture is not an effective means of getting good information, then why do people persist in using it?

Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power.

During the Cold War we fought the Soviet Union, which was a master at using secret prisons and torture. We won the Cold War in part because we at least knew such behavior is reprehensible. Now, in the midst of a newly declared nonwar war, we have met the enemy and surrendered our nation's integrity and honor. Republicans and Democrats need to come together on one critical point -- when it comes to fighting terrorists, we cannot and should not act like terrorists.