These people are a**holes...

[bascule]

Allard (R-CO), Bond (R-MO), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Stevens (R-AK)

 

Yes, here we have a Republican sponsored bill which 90% of Senators, 45 Republicans and 43 Democrats, all voted for. This is McCain's bill banning the use of torture in military investigations. This is from McCain's statement on the bill:

 

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

 

So, like the topic says... the people who voted against this bill are assholes. One of my senators is among these people, and he will definitely be receiving a very nasty letter from me...

[Severian]

What was their motivation for voting against? I can see no political gain for them.

[j_p]

Can you post a link to the bill? Or at least give the number, so we could read it?

 

And did they vote against or did they just not vote for?

[Douglas]

Since I'm not sure of their (the bill) definition of torture, I'd like to read the fine print.

[Phi for All]

It's not a bill unto itself, the language was added to the $440B military spending bill that's up before the Senate. Bush has threatened to veto it if the language was included. It's quite a slap in his face that 90 senators voted to include the language.

[john5746]

McCain I can't find that actual document, but basically, looks like it is saying American soldiers should treat all detainees as POW's. At first glance, I am of the opinion that terrorists are not soldiers and can be treated differently. While this may be the case, I don't think torture should be one of them. I go with McCain, he has experienced it and makes a moving argument about keeping ones honor. I am not a soldier, but I can see the logic in feeling more just in fighting for a country that applies a little of the golden rule to its enemies.

 

The problem I see with terrorists is that they are not bound by a country or perceived ruler. This makes it difficult to let them go and not fear retribution. Who tells them to stop fighting?

[Severian]

It doesn't matter whether they are terrorists or not. Torture is never acceptable. If you torture your enemy, then you become the bad guy.

[H W Copeland]

The only time I would allow torture is if we had a terrorist in captivity and we knew that he had knowledge of an attack against US citizens.

 

Brgore you ask, I would define knew above as having good reliable information to that effect. Reliable to be defined as accurate in the high 90s percentile.

 

In that case, I would use whatever means were necessary to extract than information in order to prevent that attack from occuring.

 

Drugs would appear to be the best bet.

[LucidDreamer]

What is considered torture? Is psychological manipulation torture? Can you torture a person without physically harming them? Can you torture a person without physically harming them or humiliating them? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is striping people and making them walk around in a semi-public area torture? Is it torture to feed people, but feed them terribly tasting gruel and offer them a steak if they open up? Is it torture to completely isolate people for long periods so that their only contact is with an interviewer? Is drugging people torture? What is torture and what isn't torture?

[john5746]

The only time I would allow torture is if we had a terrorist in captivity and we knew that he had knowledge of an attack against US citizens.

 

Brgore you ask' date=' I would define [i']knew[/i] above as having good reliable information to that effect. Reliable to be defined as accurate in the high 90s percentile.

 

In that case, I would use whatever means were necessary to extract than information in order to prevent that attack from occuring.

 

Drugs would appear to be the best bet.

 

This is the most common argument for torture. If you say probable information, then anyone can invoke that at any time. Also, as McCain said, escaping pain doesn't guarantee the truth. Drugs - if there is a real truth serum, not sure that would be considered torture would it?

[H W Copeland]

I think that resisting interrogation requires an unbending will power, dicipline and dedication to purpose.

 

There are drugs that reduce those things to the point that the interrogatee becomes, shall we say--pliable?

[bascule]

Since I'm not sure of their (the bill) definition of torture, I'd like to read the fine print.

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP1977:

 

Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.—In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

[bascule]

What was their motivation for voting against? I can see no political gain for them.

 

Dunno, but I guess Bush is planning on using his veto power for the first time ever, and here's what McClellan had to say:

 

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

 

"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said.

 

McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

 

If Bush does veto the bill, it would be his first veto during nearly five years in office.

 

So let me get this straight, his first veto ever and he's using it to block... a ban on torture?

[john5746]

I also don't understand that if it is duplicative and unnecessary, how does it limit Bush?

[LucidDreamer]

I also don't understand that if it is duplicative and unnecessary, how does it limit Bush?

Yes, that doesn't make any sense, does it? If it is duplicative then it cannot limit his power any more than the original law.

[Douglas]

What is considered torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is it torture to feed people, but feed them terribly tasting gruel? Is it torture to completely isolate people for long periods so that their only contact is with an interviewer? ?

No to the above, and I'll inclue loud music 24/7.

 

I might add that it makes no sense to torture anyone unless valuable info can be obtained.

[H W Copeland]

Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.—In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984

 

I thoughtthis sounded a little funny, so I looked it up.

 

I see nothing in the 5th amendment regarding cruel or unusual punishment:

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Nor could I find anything about it in the 14th:

 

Amendment XIV.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Phi for All]

The only time I would allow torture is if we had a terrorist in captivity and we knew that he had knowledge of an attack against US citizens.

 

Brgore you ask' date=' I would define [i']knew[/i] above as having good reliable information to that effect. Reliable to be defined as accurate in the high 90s percentile.

What makes this different than torturing any POW you think might know about enemy troop movements or battle plans? Are soldiers different than US citizens? Is attacking civilians what makes one a terrorist?

 

And how can you possibly decide before you torture someone that their information is at least 97% accurate? It's nice that you have these definitions so ready to hand, but who will make these decisions in the field? What list of criteria will they go by to determine accuracy of information that has yet to be tortured out of someone?

 

You are arguing for torture on the principal of saving civilian lives, but why are those lives so special if we've sacrificed our principals to save them? If we want to wear the white hat we have to be willing to wear the white gloves as well.

I think that resisting interrogation requires an unbending will power' date=' dicipline and dedication to purpose.

 

There are drugs that reduce those things to the point that the interrogatee becomes, shall we say--[i']pliable[/i]?

This is a complete myth. The drugs we have are hardly the "truth serums" Hollywood and popular fiction says we have. If they were so reliable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't know anyone who would consider it torture to give someone a hypo and then start the tape recorder.

 

As for resisting torture, how do you get "reliable" information under duress from someone who is willing to be blown up for what they believe in?

[H W Copeland]

What makes this different than torturing any POW you think might know about enemy troop movements or battle plans? Are soldiers different than US citizens? Is attacking civilians what makes one a terrorist?

 

And how can you possible decide before you torture someone that their information is at least 97% accurate? It's nice that you have these definitions so ready to hand' date=' but who will make these decisions in the field? What list of criteria will they go by to determine accuracy of information that has yet to be tortured out of someone?

 

You are arguing for torture on the principal of saving civilian lives, but why are those lives so special if we've sacrificed our principals to save them? If we want to wear the white hat we have to be willing to wear the white gloves as well.[/quote']

 

Actually I am not arguing anything.

 

I am just relating what I think justifies torture. Saving American lives qualifies in my opinion. If you have another opinion, well OK.......

[Phi for All]

Actually I am not arguing anything.

 

I am just relating what I think justifies torture. Saving American lives qualifies in my opinion. If you have another opinion' date=' well OK.......[/quote']Do you think it's justifiable then to torture any prisoner who we're very certain has reliable information about an attack on US citizens, soldier or civilian?

[H W Copeland]

Do you think it's justifiable then to torture any prisoner who we're very certain has reliable information about an attack on US citizens, soldier or civilian?

 

Well I would say that depends on what you mean by "prisoner."

 

If you mean a soldier who fought, wearing a uniform, at the behest of his country, I would say no.

 

If you mean people who fighting under no national flag, who have no rules of conduct, who have no knowledge of, or respect for any so-called "rules of war" then I guess I would say yes, if, as I said, you had really good information that they knew about an attack that would cost many American lives and information about that attack could be used to prevent it.

[bascule]

If you mean people who fighting under no national flag, who have no rules of conduct, who have no knowledge of, or respect for any so-called "rules of war" then I guess I would say yes

 

So it's okay to torture someone in the name of our country as long as we're torturing someone who isn't fighting in the name of theirs? I'm failing to see how that distinction wouldn't make us monsters...

 

if, as I said, you had really good information that they knew about an attack that would cost many American lives and information about that attack could be used to prevent it.

 

That's a lot of highly specific information you'd have to extract from other sources. How do you know your other sources aren't lying, and how do you know that when torture is applied, that the answers you get from the person you're torturing aren't lies? If they are, haven't you just tortured someone for no reason?

 

The use of torture in any form makes us no better than the Nazis...

[H W Copeland]

So it's okay to torture someone in the name of our country as long as we're torturing someone who isn't fighting in the name of theirs? I'm failing to see how that distinction wouldn't make us monsters...

 

 

 

That's a lot of highly specific information you'd have to extract from other sources. How do you know your other sources aren't lying' date=' and how do you know that when torture is applied, that the answers you get from the person you're torturing aren't lies? If they are, haven't you just tortured someone for no reason?

 

The use of torture in any form makes us no better than the Nazis...[/quote']

 

Well I have no interest in engaging in word games with anyone here.

 

I said what I said, and I stand by that. Whether or not you agree or disagree with me is not a matter of any importance to me.

[Phi for All]

Well I would say that depends on what you mean by "prisoner."

 

If you mean a soldier who fought' date=' wearing a uniform, at the behest of his country, I would say no.

 

If you mean people who fighting under no national flag, who have no rules of conduct, who have no knowledge of, or respect for any so-called "rules of war" then I guess I would say yes, if, as I said, you had really good information that they knew about an attack that would cost many American lives and information about that attack could be used to prevent it.[/quote']That helps clarify your position, thanks. Earlier, when you said:

Actually I am not arguing anything.

 

I am just relating what I think justifies torture. Saving American lives qualifies in my opinion.

it just sounded like you were saying saving American lives justifies torture. It sounded a lot like it. In fact you said exactly that.

 

Patriotism is very powerful. It should be the glue that unites a country and helps its citizens remember the ideals they stand for. It should never be used to justify evil acts.

[H W Copeland]

That helps clarify your position' date=' thanks. Earlier, when you said:

it just sounded like you were saying saving American lives justifies torture. It sounded a lot like it. In fact you said exactly that.

 

Patriotism is very powerful. It should be the glue that unites a country and helps its citizens remember the ideals they stand for. It should never be used to justify evil acts.[/quote']

 

If you will refer to my original statement, you will see that I specified a terrorist in captivity who knew (we think 97%) of an impending attack on US citizens and that if we could get information to prevent such attack, I would do what it took.

 

That is not to say that it wouldn't be OK for the British to do the same thing to save British citizens, it is just to say that I would leave that up to them.

 

It is not so much an act of patriotism as it is an act to save innocent human life.

 

I would venture that if a poll was taken among the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, one would find that they would be inclined to favor whatever means was necessary to keep something like that from happening again.