January 07, 2005
Might makes right?
from - Buck
Boortz gives us the rundown on whether or not torture is an acceptable means of getting information. He summarizes as follows
1. The CIA came to the White House Counsel (that's Gonzales) and asked him what constituted torture. You see, the CIA had some Islamic terrorists in their possession that meant America harm, and they wanted to know how far they could go to make those S.O.B.'s talk. As was his job to do, Gonzales asked the Department of Justice what their thoughts were.2. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel responded with a memo (now leaked) in 2002 that gave a detailed explanation of what torture was. That same memo also explained that the Executive Branch had the authority to use torture, if deemed appropriate.
3. It was also pointed out that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Al-Qaeda terrorists. They are unlawful combatants that aren't entitled to anything. If we applied the Geneva Conventions to Islamic terrorists, we would have to treat them they way we treated our own soldiers, let them openly socialize, give them a stipend, Internet access and free HBO. This is a point of contention for most liberals, but it bears repeating: the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. Never has, never will. We are free to do whatever we want with terrorists that attack the United States of America. They have no rights. Zippo.
The first question that immediately comes to mind is that if the prisoners were Al-Qaeda terrorists then why is the CIA and the Department of Justice having this conversation anyway? There is no need to go to the trouble of defining torture because supposedly these guys have no rights and you can do whatever you would like to do with them. There is no need to discuss the creation of an atmosphere of permissiveness. These guys had no rights. You can roast them over an open flame if you want to.
It is also important to note that these prisoners have simply been accused. There has been no trial. It does not seem that they should be considered prisoners of war if they are not considered state-sponsored soldiers. Those arrested only attacked Americans after they were attacked by Americans in their own country and in their own homes. Their crime was not attacking . Their crime was fighting back.
Hypothetically, if Martians (I use “Martians” because theirs would be the only civilization that may have a military as advanced as ours) had invaded and occupied America because they did not like our weapons programs and because they coveted our natural resources would it have been appropriate for them to arrest American citizens because the citizen fought back and then held those citizens indefinitely in prison camps and tortured them without restrictions?
As supposedly the most civilized nation on this planet I had hoped that we would show the world the importance of mutual respect and civilized behavior. As it now stands the only thing that separates “us” from “them” is the fact that we have a bigger gun. And as Americans I guess we are simply supposed to keep our mouths shut and be thankful that “we” are not “them”.
Posted by Buck at January 7, 2005 09:29 AM
No, what you SHOULD be thankful for is that you were not in the Twin Towers on 911. Let me ask you a question.
If 911 could have been prevented by coercing a confession from a convict through means of torture, would you or would you not approve of it?
Yes or no answer, no BS.
|
Posted by jadarm on January 7, 2005 03:39 PM Link to comment |
Why can you ask a BS question, yet require Buck to give an answer without BS? Where's that double standard come from?
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 7, 2005 03:57 PM Link to comment |
My one word, no BS answer would still be "NO". Because two wrongs do not make a right.
If the tsunami's could have been prevented by arresting and torturing Americans should we have done it?
You will say no because Americans had nothing to do with the tsunami's.
Well, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
It is generally accepted that torture does not get you accurate information. Those tortured will only say what they think you want them to say just to get you to stop.
Torture should be limited to the perverted and the sick and the twisted. If that is what we want to be then that is what we will be but we should not try to claim any kind of moral authority over any other government that uses it as a means to an end.
|
|
Posted by Buck on January 10, 2005 09:22 AM Link to comment |
Would you care if I moved this over to the Best of Boortz category?
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 10, 2005 09:41 AM Link to comment |
Put it wherever you think it needs to be. I know where Jadarm thinks it ought to be put but that would be most uncomfortable ;-)
|
|
Posted by Buck on January 10, 2005 02:25 PM Link to comment |
I'm trying to figure out where this torture thing is coming from. Oh there have been a few instances of abuse and those soldiers are being prosecuted for it. We are in a war and that will happen. Which sucks but that's reality.
But where is all this torture that you librals keep talking about? Putting panties on someone's head and such is not torture. Humiliating someone is not torture. So would someone please tell me where we are torturing people?
|
|
Posted by Rick Pearlstein on January 11, 2005 07:41 AM Link to comment |
It does boil down to a definition of torture Rick and that is what the debate is about. There have been numerous cases of prisoners dying while in the hands of their American captors (of natural causes of course). I believe it is commonly accepted that the methods used on the prisoners of Abu Ghraib did violate the Geneva Convention (for what that is worth)In your opinion were the North Vietnamese justified in their treatment of U.S. POW's? If yes then why? If not then why not? The point of my post was that as it currently stands we can legally do anything to anybody we capture in Iraq because they are not state sponsored soldiers. The state protects the state soldier with the Geneva Convention. Ordinary citizens have no such protection and that is scary to me. I know that the United States government has the capacity for great good as well as great evil. A government as powerful as ours must be watched closely and questioned constantly. As Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Is this acceptable in your opinion
|
|
Posted by Buck on January 11, 2005 09:05 AM Link to comment |
Greetings Buck,
Can we please use a little logic here? And let's not change the common usage of words. Torture involves severe physical pain. Have there been instance of this? Yes. But very few. And the person responsible for that has now been convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
If there are any other instances of this then yes, they should be prosecuted.
But the fact is that there have been very few instances of this. Have the prisoners been humiliated? Yes! And several other psychological techniques have been used as well but they have not been tortured.
You stated it correctly, these people have no claim under the Geneva Convention because they are not state sponsored soldiers. That is what the Geneva Convention was created for. Now if you like to create another convention to support the terrorists then that is an idea that you can put forward. But the Geneva Convention does not apply.
To answer your question about the NVA and the treatment of American POW's. No they weren't justified to treat them the way they did, because the Geneva Convention DID apply. The American soldiers were state sponsored. This is an easy equation.
I disagree that any government can be a force for good. And I do mean ANY government. At best, a government can be neutral and prevent evil. But they cannot be forces for good by taking money from individuals by force and using it is in itself a force of evil.
The job of government is to prevent evil from happening and let the individual do the good works.
I find it strange that you use Jefferson's quote here as it seems that you want the government to continue taking from the individual and giving it to the group. This is not freedom. Freedom is letting people keep what they earn. Freedom is letting people do what they choose to do as long as they are not using force or fraud to achieve their goals. Freedom is getting the hell out of the way, and letting the American people make their own decisions on how to raise and educate their children. Freedom is letting people succeed or fail based on their own merits.
That is the country that I hope we can see in the future. But I'm not holding my breath. For both the Republicans and the Democrats will not allow this as it takes money and power away from them.
Thank you for such an intelligent debate. Would you please email me any response as I only check this board intermittently.
Rick
|
|
Posted by Rick Pearlstein on January 15, 2005 08:17 PM Link to comment |
I hate to butt in, but I just wanted to throw in a couple of things:
1) The U.S., I hear, admits to five cases where people were tortured to death.
2) Part of the complaint is that Gonzales suggested a) that torture is legal if the Prez authorizes it and b) that the treatment must be severe enough to cause organ failure, permanent injury, or death in order to warrant the designation of torture, even though a) U.S. law forbids torture, and b) numerous techniques exist that may not result in organ failure, permanent injury or death, but that you certainly wouldn't want yourself or your kin subjected to, and would consider torturous if applied to you.
3) The Geneva conventions are not limited to state sponsored soldiers:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Now, we probably have people in custody who have not respected the laws and customs of war, and we probably even have some "terrorists" in custody. However, we have had what, less than a dozen? ... actual terrorists convicted. So just remember, the people you are calling "terrorists" are actually - at most "suspected" terrorists. What they have in common is that, for one reason or another, they are being detained by the U.S.
I know that you may consider there to be a different standard for suspected terrorists, but I would like to ask you to consider the golden rule at least in the abstract for a moment. Assuming that the U.S. was invaded, I know that I would be out on the street resisting the invaders in any way I possibly could. Let's assume, though, that you were laying low, and just happened to have the bad fortune to be living next door to me and got picked up by mistake. Where is the line between sexual humiliation and an actual flourescent light bulb up your rectum where you would draw the line between your captors being "just" and being "criminal"?
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 15, 2005 09:59 PM Link to comment |
Rick,
I will send you a reply via email a little later.
Thanks for the Geneva Convention clarification Smijer. It sounds like the Geneva Convention does apply to those rounded up and imprisoned in Iraq but while we parse words and clarify definitions I guess anything goes.
I cannot help but smile when I read the term "laws and customs of war".
|
|
Posted by Buck on January 17, 2005 02:29 PM Link to comment |
