Bush vetoes torture ban

[bascule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

 

Certainly not entirely unexpected, but I really dislike living under leadership whose bottom line seems to be the argument that torture (in addition to stripping us of our civil liberties like spying on us and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial) keeps us safe.

 

How about we sacrifice some of that alleged safety for basic human rights and civil liberties?

[timo]

How about we sacrifice some of that alleged safety for basic human rights and civil liberties?

As a semi-related question: The CIA is the foreign intelligence service, right? That means it operates entirely outside the US? Who would be potentially affected by the decision? Everyone? Only people outside the US? Only non-US citizens? Only non-US citizens outside the US (Guantanamo not counted as US territory, then)?

[ecoli]

Is there enough votes to override the veto?

 

As a semi-related question: The CIA is the foreign intelligence service, right? That means it operates entirely outside the US? Who would be potentially affected by the decision? Everyone? Only people outside the US? Only non-US citizens? Only non-US citizens outside the US (Guantanamo not counted as US territory, then)?

 

So we don't have to afford basic human rights to people who are not citizens?

 

doesn't that violate the Geneva convention?

[timo]

That does not exactly answer my question, ecoli. By "the decision" I meant the allowing or dis-allowing of waterboarding for the CIA and the implications under US rights, not the charta of human rights.

[ecoli]

That does not exactly answer my question, ecoli. By "the decision" I meant the allowing or dis-allowing of waterboarding for the CIA and the implications under US rights, not the charta of human rights.

well, we agreed to follow the Geneva convention by treaty... which have to be ratified by congress. So, it's in effect legislation.

[Psyber]

Typical US government arrogance - the US is above International law and conventions.

[in Oz I am a member of the party John Howard led into the "Coalition of the Willing", but I disagreed with him over accepting an Oz citizen being held in Guantanamo Bay without trial or proper fully independent representation for 5 years!]

[Pangloss]

The Geneva Convention is an explicit agreement covering very specific actions. You can certainly make a "spirit of the agreement" argument, but just blanketly saying we're in violation of international law is a statement that needs to be supported on legal grounds.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Geneva Conventions apply chiefly to war, not to all prisoners at all times. Torturing a prisoner (but not a POW) isn't against the Conventions, as far as I know.

[John Cuthber]

I think that the real problem here is that Mr Bush doesn't understand that torture doesn't work.

Whether or not this counts as a "black mark against the USA" or breaks international treaties isn't the point. He is condoning torture for no valid reason.

If he is in a position to make decisions like that he really ought to check the facts before making them.

[iNow]

The ban applies (among other things) to waterboarding.

Government officials under the Bush leadership has performed waterboarding.

Banning it now would be seen as an implicit acceptance of fault/guilt for previous actions.

So, he vetoed.

[John Cuthber]

The ownership of slaves was banned. Government officials owned slaves. Admitting that you were doing wrong (and refraining from doindg it in the future) is a way to claim the moral high ground.

Still doesn't mean torture works.

[Pangloss]

I think that the real problem here is that Mr Bush doesn't understand that torture doesn't work.

 

...

 

If he is in a position to make decisions like that he really ought to check the facts before making them.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that waterboarding constitutes torture, this statement has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Waterboarding has worked -- producing actionable intelligence.

 

You may wish to review the thread in which we discussed this.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30182

[ecoli]

The Geneva Conventions apply chiefly to war, not to all prisoners at all times. Torturing a prisoner (but not a POW) isn't against the Conventions, as far as I know.

So a prisoner of the "war on terror" shouldn't be considered a POW? Is that why the US congress doesn't officially declare war anymore, to avoid those pesky treaties?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So a prisoner of the "war on terror" shouldn't be considered a POW? Is that why the US congress doesn't officially declare war anymore, to avoid those pesky treaties?

 

I don't know if that's their direct intention, but that's the consequence.

[Psyber]

I think that the real problem here is that Mr Bush doesn't understand that torture doesn't work.

Whether or not this counts as a "black mark against the USA" or breaks international treaties isn't the point. He is condoning torture for no valid reason.

If he is in a position to make decisions like that he really ought to check the facts before making them.

Agreed, torture anyone enough they will say whatever they think you want to hear so you will stop - but of course if you like torturing people you won't stop anyway.

[Pangloss]

Agreed, torture anyone enough they will say whatever they think you want to hear so you will stop - but of course if you like torturing people you won't stop anyway.

 

Rofl. It's amusing the way I get asked for evidence for my opinions when something I say isn't politically correct, but when I provide it I just get walked-around and/or ignored. Whatever.

 

-------

 

Ecoli, there are additional reasons why the Geneva Convention may not apply to specific cases aside from the declaration-of-war issue. As I said above, the Geneva Convention is an explicit agreement covering very specific actions, which is why its value is more in the political arena than the legal one. You want to run around screaming "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!", more power to you (really, I applaud the thought), but the only thing that will get you in a courtroom is a toss out the door.

 

What this administration has taught us (and really the last several administrations, but let's be honest here -- this administration more than any previous one) is that there is no hair too fine to split, no law so well written that it cannot be successfully parsed and marginalized when inconvenient, and no definition that cannot be challenged in the arena of public opinion. Some of that I've applauded over the last few years -- some of those things needed challenging, and the division of power between the executive and legislative branches does require better definition. But after a while you really have to question whether this is a proper way to run an ostensibly democratic government.

 

And frankly (as I think we might agree) that question is far more important than whether some terrorist is getting his lawyer or being forced to anchor a naked pyramid. These objections about "torture doesn't work" or "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!", especially when undermined by bald partisanship (not in your case, I well know), are just another example of society spinning its wheels while the real problem -- checks and balances that are inadequate to the times -- remains unaddressed.

 

Want proof? Elect a Democrat, then sit back and watch the next eight years get progressively worse in the exact same way, just with a different set of people doing the complaining.

 

(Although I'm gradually becoming more and more convinced that Obama might be different. Maybe. Possibly. If we're reeeeeallly lucky.)

[iNow]

Want proof? Elect a Democrat, then sit back and watch the next eight years get progressively worse in the exact same way

That's a pretty bold statement.

[swansont]

Rofl. It's amusing the way I get asked for evidence for my opinions when something I say isn't politically correct, but when I provide it I just get walked-around and/or ignored. Whatever.

 

It becomes a question of what constitutes evidence/proof. If I claimed that I can psychokinetically affect the flip of a coin I can provide this evidence: it worked every time the coin came up heads. Is that proof that it works?

 

Cherry-picking data is generally not considered evidence in science. It is in law, so you have to decide which standard you are going to use.

[Phi for All]

It becomes a question of what constitutes evidence/proof. If I claimed that I can psychokinetically affect the flip of a coin I can provide this evidence: it worked every time the coin came up heads. Is that proof that it works?

 

Cherry-picking data is generally not considered evidence in science. It is in law, so you have to decide which standard you are going to use.

Pangloss was referring to the thread in which it was determined that waterboarding had proven effective in some instances. I think it's a valid bit of evidence when someone says torture doesn't work.

 

That said, I think torturing prisoners is the height of perversion. We have government medical staff at Guantanamo that provide better healthcare to the prisoners than the average American gets, then we pretend to drown prisoners so they'll divulge secrets. Democracy is better than barbarism... how?! Radical Islam would like to paint the West as monsters and this administration seems bent on providing them with all the colors of the rainbow.

[swansont]

Pangloss was referring to the thread in which it was determined that waterboarding had proven effective in some instances. I think it's a valid bit of evidence when someone says torture doesn't work.

 

I recall the thread, and the discussion (and difficulty) of defining "works." If it yields useful information once but doesn't 99 times, it the one instance evidence that it works? A scientist would probably say no. It's an anecdote.

[Pangloss]

Want proof? Elect a Democrat' date=' then sit back and watch the next eight years get progressively worse in the exact same way

[/quote']That's a pretty bold statement.

 

Based on the historical precident of the Clinton administration's animosity from the right wing. Why won't they do the same exact thing under the next Democratic president, iNow? What incentive have they received over the past eight years of watching the left wing slam Bush to NOT do the same to Obama or Hillary?

 

Dear god, you don't think we're just going to all magically come together in happiness and harmony just because we elect Obama, do you? Come on, I think I know you better than that.

 

 

I recall the thread, and the discussion (and difficulty) of defining "works." If it yields useful information once but doesn't 99 times, it the one instance evidence that it works? A scientist would probably say no. It's an anecdote.

 

No, it was empirical data from an established expert in the field. And you haven't established that it didn't work "99 times" -- that's anecdotal, a popular assumption based on a politically-correct meme, from someone who is NOT an expert in the field.

 

At any rate, I said it was evidence, I never said it was proof. Don't change the subject just because you don't like the evidence.

[PhDP]

...and even if we had more than anecdotes to support the effectiveness of torture, Bush ignores (yet again) the public opinion of most of the industrialised world. It will certainly hinder cooperation with other countries in the so-called "war against terror", just as capital punishment prevents cooperation (many nations refuse to extradite people to countries where they might face execution if convicted).

[Pangloss]

...Bush ignores (yet again) the public opinion of most of the industrialised world. It will certainly hinder cooperation with other countries in the so-called "war against terror", just as capital punishment prevents cooperation (many nations refuse to extradite people to countries where they might face execution if convicted).

 

I agree with this point, which I mentioned in this post late in the other thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=381438&postcount=101

 

But I think that we have to be wary of just playing, as I put it in that thread, "whack-a-mole", where every form of coercion that becomes identified during a Republican administration is instantly labeled "torture" regardless of whether it actually is or not.

 

We need to know all the forms of coercion that are used, and determine whether or not they are acceptable or constitute torture. Every single one of them. Full definitions. And then we need to shut up about it and stop using it as a partisan tool just because we don't like Republicans. It's counter-producting AND inaccurate -- IMO anybody who thinks a Democratic president would not have used all available methods approved for use following 9/11 is just deluding themselves.

[John Cuthber]

I reviewed the topic you refered to. It said things like "Composition fallacy.

 

Just because torture made someone tell what was apparently the truth in a case instance does not mean that torture coerces truth in the general case."

Even if you assume (and I think it's an odd assumption) that the only person they tortured was this one guy who gave them some information then you are still basing a policy on one item of data.

On that basis, since I have a beard, all people have beards.

 

If you take the much more plausible view that they tortured many people to get one item of data then you have evidence that, generally, it doesn't work.

 

Whether democrats or republicans are better people for running your country doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the fact that torture, at best works badly, and is inhumane.

This reference gives a reasonable definition and would be viewed as authoritative by most people.

http://www.who.int/hhr/Convention_torture.pdf

"‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether

physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such

purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has

committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating

or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on

discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted

by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of

a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It

does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or

incidental to lawful sanctions.’"

That definition would include "waterboarding".

[SkepticLance]

The US Army Field Manual specifically states that torture 'elicits unreliable information.'

 

The simple fact is that torture does not work, and the military knows it. All the statements about it being needed to obtain information for national security etc is so much bushwa. I do not know why the US military uses torture. It is not to gain information, since they know perfectly well that any information so gathered is useless. I would suspect it is used as a punishment for prisoners who misbehave, or some such.

 

The cynic might say it is because people who become military prison guards are sadists. It is definitely not to obtain information.