New law giving the president more power

[ahaha]

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 17, 6:23 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Some of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.

ADVERTISEMENT

The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

Imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and awaiting trial are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.

The Pentagon expects to begin pre-trial motions early next year and to begin the actual trials in the summer.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law, so Bush urged Congress to change the law during a speech on Sept. 6 in the White House East Room attended by families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims. He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough — yet unspecified — methods to interrogate suspected terrorists.

Six weeks later, after a highly publicized dispute with key Republicans over the terms of the bill, Bush signed the new law "in memory of the victims of September the 11th."

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq. It does apply to 14 suspects who were secretly questioned by the CIA overseas and recently moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy, and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican chances of hanging onto control of Congress.

Bush has been criticizing Democrats who voted against the law, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, during campaign appearances around the country. He has suggested that votes against the law show that Democrats would not protect the country from another terrorist attack.

Republican House leaders, in a tough battle to maintain their majority, echoed those criticisms Tuesday in an attempt to get some political points out of the legislation they supported. "The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives," House Speaker Dennis Hastert said.

Bush noted that the law came amid dispute.

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.

The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. Bush said such measures have helped the CIA gain vital information from terror suspects and have saved American lives.

After Bush signed the law, CIA Director Mike Hayden sent a note to employees saying it gives them "the legal clarity and legislative support necessary to continue a program that has been one of our country's most effective tools in the fight against terrorism."

"We can be confident that our program remains — as it always has been — fully compliant with U.S. law, the Constitution and our international treaty obligations," Hayden wrote.

The White House has said that disclosing the techniques that are used would give the enemy information to resist those techniques. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation of the standards, but those documents are not usually made public.

Snow rejected the idea that Americans should be able to see and judge the standards for themselves, particularly in the aftermath of illegal abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"The only way accountability doesn't exist is if you believe that the military is not committed to it," Snow said.


Does this scare the crap out of anybody else?

[ahaha]

I'm liking Feingold for prez in '08.

[SkinBasket]

Does this scare the crap out of anybody else?

Not really, since I haven't been arrested in an Al-Queda terrorist camp in Afganistan shooting up parts of feulselage painted with the words "Air Force One." But that's just me.

[ahaha]

I'm not nearly as afraid of terrorists as I am of an executive branch gone power crazy.

[FavreChild]

The executive branch has gone crazy since the Wilson administration. You should check out a book on this phenomenon by Jeffrey Tulis, called "The Rhetorical Presidency." Explains how Wilsonian philosophy changed the powers of the executive office. The president does a bunch of stuff that Congress is supposed to be doing, and it's stuck ever since.

[mraynrand]

I'm not nearly as afraid of terrorists as I am of an executive branch gone power crazy.

I agree. Any day now, the executive branch will start flying planes into buildings, exploding embassies and ships at harbor, slitting throats on the internet, exploding trains in India, bulldozing villagers alive into water pits in Northern Afghanistan, etc. etc. You can just see it's the next step after the authorization to try terrorists via military tribunals.

[ahaha]

I'm not nearly as afraid of terrorists as I am of an executive branch gone power crazy.

I agree. Any day now, the executive branch will start flying planes into buildings, exploding embassies and ships at harbor, slitting throats on the internet, exploding trains in India, bulldozing villagers alive into water pits in Northern Afghanistan, etc. etc. You can just see it's the next step after the authorization to try terrorists via military tribunals.

SUSPECTED terrorists. And now we can use new levels of torture, legally. And, if you're one of these suspects, you can't challenge with a lawyer.

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal who doesn't realize there are rare occasions where these kind of measures are neccesary. But, it shouldn't be LAW.

[SkinBasket]

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal...


I'm liking Feingold for prez in '08.

Too late.

[ahaha]

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal...


I'm liking Feingold for prez in '08.

Too late.

C'mon dude, that's just plain stupid. I'm what any REASONABLE person should be, a moderate.

[mraynrand]

SUSPECTED terrorists. And now we can use new levels of torture, legally. And, if you're one of these suspects, you can't challenge with a lawyer.

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal who doesn't realize there are rare occasions where these kind of measures are neccesary. But, it shouldn't be LAW.

These guys are getting a lot better than they got in the past. Read up on Elihu Root and his protection of human rights abusers in the late 1800s early 1900s in the Phillipines. Life is a frickin' country club for these vile terrorists compared to the past. And if you think the military is going to treat all SUSPECTED terrorists the same way, you're nuts. The guys that are key players will be grilled but the bit players will probably get Gitmo-like treatment. Maybe some all-nighters, some rap music, and grilled chicken on a bed of rice with fresh fruit.

Feingold would probably like to give them all Johnny Cockroach and Flea Baily-like attournies and four year long trials, with 28 month senetences, like that traitor lawyer who was trafficking al Quaida messages.

[mraynrand]

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal...


I'm liking Feingold for prez in '08.

Too late.

C'mon dude, that's just plain stupid. I'm what any REASONABLE person should be, a moderate.

If you think Feingold is a moderate, then you know nothing about politics.

[ahaha]

-Look, I don't want to sound like a super liberal...


I'm liking Feingold for prez in '08.

Too late.

C'mon dude, that's just plain stupid. I'm what any REASONABLE person should be, a moderate.

If you think Feingold is a moderate, then you know nothing about politics.

I was talking about myself. Sometimes I vote liberal, sometimes conservative. I was called a super liberal because I said I liked Feingold for president. Although, I do think Feingold is a moderate democrat.

[hoosier]

I agree. Any day now, the executive branch will start flying planes into buildings, exploding embassies and ships at harbor, slitting throats on the internet, exploding trains in India, bulldozing villagers alive into water pits in Northern Afghanistan, etc. etc. You can just see it's the next step after the authorization to try terrorists via military tribunals.

So you're only able to see violence and abuse of power when something blows up? The problem w/ military tribunals isn't that terrorists will be put on trial, it's the way the trials are designed. If total secrecy and interrogation methods bordering on torture become the new norms for dealing with terrorism, it doesn't matter how many we convict and put away--terrorism has already won.

[mraynrand]

I agree. Any day now, the executive branch will start flying planes into buildings, exploding embassies and ships at harbor, slitting throats on the internet, exploding trains in India, bulldozing villagers alive into water pits in Northern Afghanistan, etc. etc. You can just see it's the next step after the authorization to try terrorists via military tribunals.

So you're only able to see violence and abuse of power when something blows up? The problem w/ military tribunals isn't that terrorists will be put on trial, it's the way the trials are designed. If total secrecy and interrogation methods bordering on torture become the new norms for dealing with terrorism, it doesn't matter how many we convict and put away--terrorism has already won.

Two points. First, what did we do in the past with terrorists and spies? One reason you may not know is the high level of secrecy. As decades old and even century old information becomes available or is scrutinized, it's obvious that spies and terrorists were treated with the harshest methods available, then shot or hung. So we're a hell of a lot nicer now.

Second, Ahaha wrote that he was more worried by our government than the terrorists. I wrote my sarcasic response to illustrate how absurd that notion is. Terrorism wins when they blow up buildings and trains and frigthen the hell out of civilians. Terrorism wins when an entire culture become accustomed to bombs and other slayings as a part of life, as has happened in Israel. My point of view is that neither of these outcomes are acceptable for the U.S. That's why I think it's necessary to promote change in the middle east and have at least some latitude in dealing with the worst terrorists, at least in the case of the terrorist who knows the location of the ticking bomb, and in the case of terrorists trying to call their buddies in the U.S.

[Freak Out]

The legislation that the president signed into law will not make it out of the courts. It's an embarrassment and was rammed through without enough thought and debate. Congress is a joke. It is easily the most corrupt since the gilded age and has done nothing worth noting. I won’t even get going on the President, he’ll be gone in a few years and hopefully the damage he can still do will be minimized by a new Congress. Doubtful though.

[hoosier]

First, what did we do in the past with terrorists and spies? One reason you may not know is the high level of secrecy. As decades old and even century old information becomes available or is scrutinized, it's obvious that spies and terrorists were treated with the harshest methods available, then shot or hung. So we're a hell of a lot nicer now.

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.




Second, Ahaha wrote that he was more worried by our government than the terrorists. I wrote my sarcasic response to illustrate how absurd that notion is.

Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?




That's why I think it's necessary to promote change in the middle east and have at least some latitude in dealing with the worst terrorists, at least in the case of the terrorist who knows the location of the ticking bomb, and in the case of terrorists trying to call their buddies in the U.S.



"The terrorist who knows" argument is a red herring and a cheap appeal to emotion in order to win blanket approval for tactics that would never otherwise see the light of day.

[FavreChild]

Without making any *value* judgments about liberal/moderate/conservative...

The last "liberal" president, rhetorically speaking, was LBJ. I scoff at the notion of any current elected official as "liberal."

Not to mention that all elected officials are pro-capitalism (hence, not *really* liberal, if you want to discuss semantics) but that's a can of worms I don't especially care to discuss. :cool:

Why the hell am I posting, then?? :mrgreen:

[SkinBasket]

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.


Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?

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.

[hoosier]

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.

First off, a significant percentage of people detained at Gitmo have turned out to have nothing to do with terrorism, Taliban, etc. Bummer for them. Second, what exactly is a "carefully controlled environment under specific humanitarian conditions"? Prolonged sleep deprivation, simulated suffocation--it does sound controlled, but doesn't quite have a humanitiarian ring to me.



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.

Since the power to designate someone as "enemy combatant" is totally arbitrary, it theoretically affects any and all of us. But that's not my point. My point is, as soon as we begin to differentiate between people who have full rights and people who don't (or people who aren't fully human), our democratic tradition has died. And since US citizens are very likely to be processed under this bill if it doesn't get struck down, one can't get off the hook arguing that it only affects people not protected by the US constitution.

[ahaha]

I don't get it. Countries used to draw and quarter traitors so now we should feel all warm and cozy because we stop short of killing them? Old histories of barbarism can't be used to justify new, kinder and gentler barbarisms.

You're right. Keeping someone who would wipe out every non-muslim on the face of the planet without a second thought awake for a day straight with loud rap music in a carefully controlled environment under specific humanitrian conditions is terribly barbaric.

Do you really believe these are the harsher methods Bush wants to implement? In order for torture to work it has to involve extreme suffering.

[ahaha]

Why is that notion absurd? Is a terrorist attack really more damaging to democracy in the long run than a government with no respect for civil liberaties and human rights?

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.

Anyone the military suspects has ties to terrorism. I guess that wouldn't be a problem if they never ever made one single mistake. But, they're human, and bound to make mistakes. And when they do, the defendents won't have any way to challenge.

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

[ahaha]

Second, Ahaha wrote that he was more worried by our government than the terrorists. I wrote my sarcasic response to illustrate how absurd that notion is. Terrorism wins when they blow up buildings and trains and frigthen the hell out of civilians. Terrorism wins when an entire culture become accustomed to bombs and other slayings as a part of life, as has happened in Israel.

Terrorism wins when we give up our freedom because of fear.

[SkinBasket]

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.

Since the power to designate someone as "enemy combatant" is totally arbitrary, it theoretically affects any and all of us. But that's not my point. My point is, as soon as we begin to differentiate between people who have full rights and people who don't (or people who aren't fully human), our democratic tradition has died. And since US citizens are very likely to be processed under this bill if it doesn't get struck down, one can't get off the hook arguing that it only affects people not protected by the US constitution.

An "arbitrary" meteorite falling from the sky "theoretically" affects me too, and it worries me just as much as the passage of this bill. Actually the meteorite concernes me more, since I'm pretty sure that I am not:

a) Going to be captured in Afghanistan fighting against American forces or

b) Going to spend several months at an al-Queda training camp, where I may, or may not, plot a dirty bomb attack.

which are the reasons that exactly two US citizens have been designated enemy combatants - making them theoretically subject to this bill. Not exactly as arbitrary as you claim or as widespread as you fear.

Bang the gong.

[mraynrand]

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

Yes, it is un-American, specifically for those un-American 'individuals' as Feingold calls them. I can't stand this manipulative freak. He's trying to persuade you into thinking that Americans would somehow lose their civil liberties. They would not. He's also presenting the exact same argument he would present for allowing a death row inmate to escape execution. It's always the worst case scenario - coerced testimony, conviction, death sentence. Painting the process as though the military wants to put any suspicious American to death on a whim. Well, they want to be able to arrest and try suspected foreign terrorists without divulging surveilance methods (NYT?) and without the circus of the high profile U.S. trial (O.J., anyone?). If you don't like this, then what is the proper alternative?

[ahaha]

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

Terribly un-American.

Yes, it is un-American, specifically for those un-American 'individuals' as Feingold calls them. I can't stand this manipulative freak. He's trying to persuade you into thinking that Americans would somehow lose their civil liberties. They would not. He's also presenting the exact same argument he would present for allowing a death row inmate to escape execution. It's always the worst case scenario - coerced testimony, conviction, death sentence. Painting the process as though the military wants to put any suspicious American to death on a whim. Well, they want to be able to arrest and try suspected foreign terrorists without divulging surveilance methods (NYT?) and without the circus of the high profile U.S. trial (O.J., anyone?). If you don't like this, then what is the proper alternative?

1. Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial. And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

2. I think you're way off on your judgement of Feingold. When presenting a negative argument, the idea is to show all the negatives of a new policy and how they outweigh any positives. I don't understand how he's manipulating us by stating the worst case scenarios, especially when they're so plausible. And, he never implied the whole military would be out to abuse this power. But, with this law behind them, there is sure to be some fanatics, in the war on terror, who abuse it. And speaking of manipulation, Feingold's biggest opponents on this argument are the best. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership under Karl Rove are masters at manipulating public perception.(Truth be told, all politicians have skills in manipulating the way people think)

3. Freedom is lost in increments. This law, in itself, may not take away our civil liberites, but it's a step in that direction. The real problem for us as citizens is that once this becomes accepted practice it could lead to further similar legislation. Terrorist aren't always foreign. We could see more attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing or more bombs on abortion clinics. Isn't it plausible to think these events could lead to an expansion of this law to include all U.S. citizens suspected of any kind of ties to a terrorist group.


4. What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial.

Who says their military trial wouldn't be as fair as any trial that get in a U.S. court? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this cover terrorists arrested overseas? They aren't U.S. citizens. They aren't even U.S. residents. You can't treat them like U.S. citizens or U.S. residents. They are not protected by the same laws we are. BTW, are you for an international tribunal to try our military personnel overseas?


And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

These won't be high profile circuses? Are you kidding me? The media wouldn't be able to get enough of these.


Freedom is lost in increments.

Valid point. I'm a Libertarian at the corp. Hell, I'm against helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking bans for private businesses, etc. However, I also have come to the realization that we live in new times. Unfortunately, we can never go back to the way things used to be. Not with the scope of attacks are enemies (and they are our enemies) are willing to go, the methods our enemies are using, and technologies are enemies are exploiting.


What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

What is an alternative? I don't think it's reasonable to think we can try ever terrorist we pick up overseas in a conventional trial. The process will be too slow, too much of the military's attention will be diverted from the task at hand, the media circus will be too much, and the costs will be exorbinant. It's not like they won't be getting any trial at all. They'll have their day in court. It's just not the conventional trial we are used to, but they aren't protected by the same laws that we are.

[ahaha]

Just because the accused isn't a U.S. citizen, it doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to a fair trial.

Who says their military trial wouldn't be as fair as any trial that get in a U.S. court? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this cover terrorists arrested overseas? They aren't U.S. citizens. They aren't even U.S. residents. You can't treat them like U.S. citizens or U.S. residents. They are not protected by the same laws we are. BTW, are you for an international tribunal to try our military personnel overseas?

Some might say the admission of evidence gained through torture and coersion isn't as fair. And, it also includes those suspects caught on American soil.



And, I don't see them all becoming high profile circuses like your worst case scenario(O.J.).

These won't be high profile circuses? Are you kidding me? The media wouldn't be able to get enough of these.

O.J.'s trial was allowed to be televised. High profile cases garner attention, so what? Should we throw out justice in the interest of keeping it quiet and cheap?



Freedom is lost in increments.

Valid point. I'm a Libertarian at the corp. Hell, I'm against helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking bans for private businesses, etc. However, I also have come to the realization that we live in new times. Unfortunately, we can never go back to the way things used to be. Not with the scope of attacks are enemies (and they are our enemies) are willing to go, the methods our enemies are using, and technologies are enemies are exploiting.

The world is and always will be dangerous. Our today's threats worse than what we faced during WWII, or the high tension, nuclear missiles pointing at each other, Cold War?



What is the proper alternative? Strike down this law. The status quo may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean we need this law.

What is an alternative? I don't think it's reasonable to think we can try ever terrorist we pick up overseas in a conventional trial. The process will be too slow, too much of the military's attention will be diverted from the task at hand, the media circus will be too much, and the costs will be exorbinant. It's not like they won't be getting any trial at all. They'll have their day in court. It's just not the conventional trial we are used to, but they aren't protected by the same laws that we are.



I'm not advocating they get a conventional trial a U.S. citizen would get. But, these suspects deserve a fair trial along the Geneva Convention's rules for enemy combatants.

[ahaha]

Stanford Report, October 25, 2006
Military Commissions Act a ‘poisoned chalice,’ scholar warns during symposium

BY LISA TREI

Photo by L.A. Cicero

David Luban of Georgetown and Jenny Martinez of Stanford gave presentations Friday as part of the conference.




President George Bush's approval of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which permits controversial practices expediting the interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects, undermines the legal prohibition of torture and, in turn, degrades society itself, lawyer Jenny Martinez said Friday during a symposium, "Thinking Humanity After Abu Ghraib."

"The legalization of torture is a loaded gun," warned Martinez, an associate professor of law who in 2004 argued for the defense before the U.S. Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a case centering on the power of the president to detain American citizens as enemy combatants. Techniques used by CIA interrogators such as extended sleep deprivation, hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning, are now at the discretion of the president, she said. "As a result, countries around the world can point to the U.S. and say that torture is permitted," she added. "Legalization of torture degrades society and government in a way illegal torture does not. The existence of torture undermines the humanity of the state and ultimately undermines the security of the state."

Martinez joined ethicists, journalists and psychologists at the Oct. 20 symposium, cosponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and held in Tresidder's Oak Lounge, to provide a disturbing glimpse into the evolution of an aspect of U.S. policy since the Bush administration launched the "war on terror" following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to conference organizers, public exposure of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, revelations of "extraordinary rendition" of terror suspects to countries that practice torture, the ongoing detention of prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay and evidence of secret CIA prisons have had profound repercussions on how the United States is viewed abroad and by its citizens at home.

Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist for The New Yorker who was largely responsible for breaking the Abu Ghraib story in 2004, opened the conference with a keynote address Thursday in Kresge Auditorium. Hersh compared the psychological and reputational damage reverberating from the prison scandal to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, a story that he broke and that earned him a Pulitzer Prize.

On Friday, Mark Danner, who also writes for The New Yorker, provided graphic descriptions of the torture of Iraqi civilians by their American captors and detailed how the federal government has responded to allegations of abuse. "In this administration, officials lie in the full light of day," Danner said. If the American polity fails to confront this, he said, it will mean the people have accepted the government's actions. "This is not simply a partisan political issue," he continued. "This is what fear—used by politicians and accepted by the populace—does."

During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk.

According to Gerald Gray, a clinical social worker and former program manager of the Center for Survivors of Torture in San Jose, "Abu Ghraib is a speck on the panorama of abuse" that captured the world's attention because of its graphic images. "The U.S. government operates 16 other prisons in Iraq," he said. "No U.S. torture is accidental. It's all policy; it's all planned. Modern-day torture is political control."

To date, Gray said, lawyers and journalists have largely been responsible for exposing such broad abuses of government power. "As psychologists, I hope, beginning with this symposium, we can change this," he said. Gray called on attendees to support the 150 torture victim centers that operate worldwide. He said survivors need both clinical and legal assistance to recover from their physical and psychological wounds. "You only recover from torture if you feel safe," he said.

David Luban, a Georgetown Law School professor and a former Stanford visiting professor, noted that it was ironic that the Military Commissions Act was signed into law about the same time as the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders. Great Britain and Russia opposed the trials—Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin wanted the Nazi war criminals executed—but the United States insisted on due process to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law. Luban described how Justice Robert H. Jackson, who took a leave from the U.S. Supreme Court to act as chief counsel for the United States, pushed for the trials. Quoting from Jackson's opening speech at the first Nuremberg trial, Luban said, "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well." With the enactment of the Military Commissions Act, "every aspect of the Nuremberg vision has been reversed," Luban said. "President Bush has signed into law a poisoned chalice."

[SkinBasket]

Good god. Let's not just start posting articles by highly biased sources on one side or the other. At least put some effort into writing something yourself - even if you do only steal whatever's written in the article. Otherwise, no one's gonna read it.

[ahaha]

Good god. Let's not just start posting articles by highly biased sources on one side or the other. At least put some effort into writing something yourself - even if you do only steal whatever's written in the article. Otherwise, no one's gonna read it.

Every viewpoint is biased in some way. At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies. :cat:

Sorry about the long article, though. :oops: I thought some of the points were interesting regarding recent American history on torture and the trials of known war criminals.

[SkinBasket]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies. :cat:

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

It's not the legnth of the article that's a problem, it's just the AP thread over at the ol' shithole became nothing more than those guys posting whole articles back and forth. We could spend forever and a weekend googling any subject and finding articles saying whatever we want them to say then posting them here. I would rather you chose the parts you like, cite the article (or don;t, its not like anyone cares enough to look into it), and put those points forward. Makes for a much more interactive and interesting debate - especially on such a boring topic.

[ahaha]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies. :cat:

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

The parts I found most interesting were the paragraphs about Philip Zimbardo, the psychology professor emeritus. You may think he's all about pushing the democrats agenda, but I think he's a man who has made his life's work the study of toture as a policy and how that affects those caught up in its mechanizations.


During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk."

Believe this guy, or not? I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy. I tend to believe his view that even good guards can turn bad in a situation where torture is law and sanctioned from the top brass.

[KYPack]

Not a bad thread.

Although it might be disintegrating.

Doesn't this whole deal belong in the RR?

(Holy Shit! I didn't realize I was in the RR! I leave the post so other people can see how stupid I can get.)

[mraynrand]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies. :cat:

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

The parts I found most interesting were the paragraphs about Philip Zimbardo, the psychology professor emeritus. You may think he's all about pushing the democrats agenda, but I think he's a man who has made his life's work the study of toture as a policy and how that affects those caught up in its mechanizations.


During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk."

Believe this guy, or not? I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy. I tend to believe his view that even good guards can turn bad in a situation where torture is law and sanctioned from the top brass.



I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy.

Or you could look at it a different way. If you accept his premise, just so long as there is a situation with guards and prisoners, you will be unable to avoid situations of 'corruption' among the guards. His social experiment has often been cited, in most cases to argue against typical prison environment. So let's assume he's right. Then the only way to prevent such occurances is to stop war, not take prisoners, or completely change the way prisoners are dealt with. Experiments in American prisons have dealt with techniques for rehabilitation, early release with supervison, halfway houses, extended parole, etc. etc. So I guess you have to ask yourself how we will rehabilitate or 'parole' al Quaeda members who have been brainwashed possibly their entire lives to hate the U.S. and to do everything intheir power to kill Americans. If you can come up with a plan, I'd like to hear it. (Maybe we could put Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton in charge!).

A related issue is that the study demonstrates the effects such prison environments can have on the 'jailers,' yet what the law was really addressing was not so much the jailing, but the acceptable interrogation techniques. Still, it's nice to see you cite research that, even though it may be unintended, shows concern for the well-being of the mental state of the 'jailers' or interrogators. I feel a lot of sympathy for these guys, knowing what they know. having to deal with extracting information from people who are plotting to slaughter Americans in all kinds of barbaric manners. It's got to weigh heavily on these guys, most of whom come from decent backgrounds and are highly moral and patriotic.

[Guiness]

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.

[Joemailman]

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.


So based on your thinking, Christian Germans in the 1930's were right not to oppose what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. After all, it didn't affect them, right? When citizens let their government take away their civil rights, they are laying the groundwork for a situation where anyone's civil rights can be taken away. My concern about this law has little to with what I think Bush will do with it. What this law does is create a situation where if a really evil person were to ascend to the presidency, his or her ability to do harm would be greatly enhanced by the unprecedented powers a cowardly Congress has ceded to the Presidency. With this legislation, we have allowed Bin Laden to force us to live less freely before we did on 9/11.

[SkinBasket]

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.


So based on your thinking, Christian Germans in the 1930's were right not to oppose what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. After all, it didn't affect them, right? When citizens let their government take away their civil rights, they are laying the groundwork for a situation where anyone's civil rights can be taken away. My concern about this law has little to with what I think Bush will do with it. What this law does is create a situation where if a really evil person were to ascend to the presidency, his or her ability to do harm would be greatly enhanced by the unprecedented powers a cowardly Congress has ceded to the Presidency. With this legislation, we have allowed Bin Laden to force us to live less freely before we did on 9/11.

WHAT?! :shock: We're talking about this one bill - not the holocaust. Of course, I guess it's easier to just link the passage of this bill to some tragic event in world history instead of trying to prove whatever wacky point it is you're trying to make. Regardless of what you "think" the president will do with it, if you've read the thread up til now, you'll see what HAS been done with it.

As far as your unfounded fears of some prime evil ascending to the presidency and using this bill to begin his reign of terror and darkness... lol... I'm sorry, but do you walk around with a tinfoil hat too?

[SkinBasket]

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.

Should I ask any other Canadian citizens how this bill erodes their rights and liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution? Oh, yeah, they don't have any, because they're Canadian.

If Mr. Arar wants to address Canadian officials about how he was treated in Syria and how his Canadian rights and liberties were abused, then that's wonderful. He probably should.

[Cleft Crusty]

edit - Clft Crusty doesn't comment on politics.

[SkinBasket]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies. :cat:

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

A "symposium" attacking the policies of the administration consisting of several New Yorker writers and a professor neck deep in the NYU/UC-Berkely culture who's more interested in selling his book delving into his own delusions of grandeur and feelings of unrequited 1970s remorse doesn't strike me as a terribly non-political event. Maybe I'm just a little more skeptical than most though.

[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.