Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

telkanuru · 01-20-2005, 03:04 PM

Such a memo could be beneficial, but only if it correctly evaluates which acts are torture, which the one in question does not, in my opinion.

By correctly defining it, it is against torture. By incorrectly defining it, it allows for it, which is, granted, not the same thing as championing it, but it is still morally reprehensable.

Must... resist... maelstrom... of political... debate...

Soldier · 01-20-2005, 04:08 PM

You have me quite confused. What exactly were you saying?

Inquartata · 01-22-2005, 08:05 PM

Perhaps if you were not distracted by all those chickens you could concentrate better.

Soldier · 01-22-2005, 08:07 PM

Hey, hey. Heed the sig, buddy.

Inquartata · 01-23-2005, 06:36 PM

Er....sig heil?

esskreemr · 01-23-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soldier

I would say that a memo defining what is and is not torture, could actually be beneficial - especially if it makes it easier to prosecute those that cross the line.

I am not so sure that it amounts to "actively championing torture", any more than a recent rise in infant mortality means that Bush's administration is a bunch of baby-killers.

The memo in question was about trying to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. IMO (For Inq's satisfaction), it sounded like a safety net for admin higher ups. "Well, my expert on torture told me what we were doing is ok. I try to listen to my people."

It did not elaborate on what methods would qualify, but focused on "disqualifiers" in case the U.S. was brought to trial for War Crimes.

Rogue · 01-23-2005, 07:10 PM

If we followed the Geneva Convention strictly, we could execute these b@st@rds in the street as spies since they wear no uniform.

The Geneva convention offers no protection to these terrorist.

jeff · 01-23-2005, 07:37 PM

Assistant Attorney General Bybee "Any effort to apply Section 2340A in a manner that interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional". (2340A is the part of US law that adopts the international Convention Against Torture). (So, you can torture, according to this, so long as further the presidents goals in this war? Is that a green light or what?)

I just read the NYT review on 2 books on this subject, from which the above was abstracted. The books are The Abu Ghraib Investigations (official report), and Torture and Truth. Bearing in mind that either of the books could be wrong in its analysis (though one has to grant the first book its authority), and that a book review itself is clearly not authoritative (could be selective in its quoting, for example), the review is nonetheless a very illuminating view into this subject we've been arguing over. I don't imagine there would be any reason for the well-known Andrew Sullivan (reviewer) to make falsehoods about the book contents that could easily be refuted

The books make clear (and I've read this elsewhere) that the abuses have ocurred in multiple locations (Gitmo, Baghdad, Basra, Afghanistan, etc) and by very different military units (Seals, Marines, MPs, reservists, Special Forces). There are documented examples of rape, injuries requiring hospitalization, burns requiring finger amputation, claims of severe beatings. The Schlesinger panel "has officially concede, though the President has not acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death". 23 other deaths have not been fully investigated by the time the official report was issued. Investigations by US Army include an example of a detainee sodomised with a police stick. There's more. It's not a pretty story. The inference in my mind is that while there may be a shadowy line between abuse and torture, the line was stepped over on multiple occasions. I further believe that this is consequence from directions from above to obtain information (the Schlesinger report discusses the subject - little or no intel came from this) and giving a legal roadmap that quietly gave permission.

The books also discuss accountability - especially the consequences of defining down the limits of actionable torture and outlining when rules can be dropped. For those interested in all this, the Schlesinger report should be available for deeper reading. I don't imagine it will qualify as a fun read.

(On Rogue's point: I am not a lawyer, but I think his comment that shooting the bastards would have been legal under Geneva convention is correct)

Epee_Pox · 01-23-2005, 08:15 PM

The Schlesinger report is available in .pdf format on the web. It is actually quite readable.

Dr. Schlesinger is one of the most erudite, learned and well-spoken men to have served at the higher levels of US government, and his influence can be detected in reading the report.

Soldier · 01-23-2005, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The memo in question was about trying to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. IMO (For Inq's satisfaction), it sounded like a safety net for admin higher ups. "Well, my expert on torture told me what we were doing is ok. I try to listen to my people."

It did not elaborate on what methods would qualify, but focused on "disqualifiers" in case the U.S. was brought to trial for War Crimes.

Not sure how it would be circumventing the Geneva conventions, since it was addressing an area not covered by the Geneva conventions. I say it's better than having no definition of torture at all. And of course (again), defining what is or is not torture (even if you don't personally agree with the definition) does not amount to "championing torture".

Epee_Pox · 01-23-2005, 11:24 PM

I agree. You're asked for a legal definition of what the lawful possibilities are. You provide that definition. Nobody asked you to advocate anything, and nobody said they're going to even come close to the line, much less cross it. I fail to see the scandal.

Gav · 03-23-2005, 09:14 PM

There is an article tonight on Newsight about Guantanomo and the presidents reaction to being told that he can't keep these prisoners locked up without trial.

You can watch the epsiode online for the next 24hr's. I'd recommend watching it. I was going to upload it, but the file size is too big (13Mb).

Anyway, below is the brief description from the site:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newsnight

Guantanamo

The American government's policy to hold terror suspects at Guantanamo unravels still further.

Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that US law does apply to Guantanamo.

Peter Marshall has a special report on attempts to "render" - as the terminology has it - prisoners to the custody of foreign countries like Egypt and Jordan, removing them from the jurisdiction of American courts and heading off possible lawsuits and claims for freedom.

Mr Epee · 11-07-2005, 05:51 PM

Yep, I'm digging up an old one, but it's in the news today.

These stories are currently running side by side.

A little unintentional comedy brought to you courtesy of the White House, and the good folks at CNN.

Five U.S. soldiers charged with abuse BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Five U.S. soldiers from the 75th Ranger Regiment have been accused of beating detainees in Iraq, the U.S. military said Monday.

Quote:

"The allegations stem from an incident on September 7 in which three detainees were allegedly punched and kicked by the soldiers as they were awaiting movement to a detention facility," according to a news release from the U.S. military.

Bush defends detainees policy PANAMA CITY, Panama (AP) -- President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.

Quote:

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."

esskreemr · 11-07-2005, 06:03 PM

The easy answer is to, like McCain had tried to do on several occassions, put the "No Torturing" into law. This helps protect front-line soldiers as well as prisoners. No more vague allusions which leave the common soldier holding the bag for 'roughing' up prisoners.

YankeeRebel · 11-07-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."

I'm glad to hear that Bush is so opposed to torture. I guess this means that he will support McCain's anti-torture bill, right?

esskreemr · 11-07-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

I'm glad to hear that Bush is so opposed to torture. I guess this means that he will support McCain's anti-torture bill, right?

If by support you mean veto, yes.

Inquartata · 11-07-2005, 10:09 PM

All hail the Great Karnak, seer extraordinaire, reborn in the person of Esskreemr.

While you're at it, tell us, oh wise one, which horse will win the fifth race at Santa Anita on Saturday...

esskreemr · 11-07-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

All hail the Great Karnak, seer extraordinaire, reborn in the person of Esskreemr.

While you're at it, tell us, oh wise one, which horse will win the fifth race at Santa Anita on Saturday...

Yeah, I know. I'm being extraordinarily optimistic by taking Arbusto's words at face value. What can I say, I'm just naturally a naive, trusting fool.

YankeeRebel · 11-08-2005, 06:07 PM

Is it just me, or does it seem like Bush has talked himself into a corner on this issue?

First he says that the United States acts within the bounds of the law and does not torture. Great. But then the Vice President himself begins to lobby for an exemption to the anti-torture bill that would make the CIA exempt from any additional restrictions. Hmmm.

When asked why the Vice President is lobbying for an exemption to the anti-torture bill, the administration says it needs the exemption so that it can use the "threat" of torture on prisoners.

But . . . how compelling can this so-called "threat" be if the President himself announces to the whole world that torture is not condoned or practiced by the United States? If you believe what Bush is saying is true, and you believe that the military is strictly adhering to the anti-torture rules, then any "threat" to use torture would be empty, wouldn't it?

Why would the CIA need an exemption to issue a "threat" of torture when Bush says that torture is forbidden by the rules anyways?

esskreemr · 11-08-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

But . . . how compelling can this so-called "threat" be if the President himself announces to the whole world that torture is not condoned or practiced by the United States? If you believe what Bush is saying is true, and you believe that the military is strictly adhering to the anti-torture rules, then any "threat" to use torture would be empty, wouldn't it?

Why would the CIA need an exemption to issue a "threat" of torture when Bush says that torture is forbidden by the rules anyways?

It's calle