The Alley |
Is Waterboarding Torture? or onward Christian Soldiers |
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
From andrewsullivan.com: Andrew notes a transcript http://www.lawofwar.org/what's_new.htm from a trial of Japanese interrogators after WWII who waterboarded Americans in captivity -- being prosecuted for war crimes -- the testimony of an American soldier waterboarded: quote: And the CIA's description of the waterboarding technique approved by Bush admin at Gitmo; quote: Sullivan ends; quote: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/is_waterboardin.html And scroll down; quote:http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/americans_and_t.html |
||
© Copyright 2006 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
So, it sounds like a real double standard to me. I mean...aren't we the ones trying to bring "civilization" to the "barbarians." I doubt seriously that any torture method is going to pull out anything of real importance beside the knowledge that you cannot fight ideology with torture and radical moslems are taught that the best thing that can happen to them is to become a matyr -- they welcome it. My thoughts are that one would catch more flies with honey. The best way to find out anything from them, I believe, would be to simply bunk a few of them together and listen to their conversations and watch their nonverbal communications. Radicals of any religion, from my experience, love to glorify their egos with each other. Is it torture....yes. Similar techniques (creating the fear of drowning) have been used for hundreds of years (probably thousands). |
||
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And the CIA's description of the waterboarding technique approved by Bush admin at Gitmo; Interesting how the word Bush always seems to get in there. Admin is not enough, I suppose. Bush gives it a lot more punch. I read one post where it is said Bush was too dumb to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and then this one where Bush must have orchestrated the torture techniques used by commanders and soldiers. The Bush Legacy....it's all him. Katrina, Gitmo, and the list goes on. Foreign port sales, spying techniques, the economy (oh, that's good - scratch that one), it's interresting how it's becoming a daily event here for someone to dig into some topic and pull out a Bush legacy plum. It's also interesting to learn that, as a Christian, I am more presupposed to sanction torture than an atheist. Thanks for the info, reb. |
||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Balladeer -- The last time I heard, Bush was the "Commander" in Chief. |
||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Yano....that is interesting about the percentages of Christians that support torture. Interesting because Christ himself would not have supported it, I think. If I'm wrong in that supposition, someone please tell me...but from everything I've studied all my life, I can't buy into an educated and dedicated Christ-ian buying into that -- what ever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, the 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule -- the premises of true Christianity? |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hawke: I wonder what the statistics would be if those taking the survey understood the limitations and short- and long-term consequences of using torture to extract information. If the underlying assumption is that torture might extract information that could save lives, I expect more people would favor it. And I think if you framed the question to anyone like this: "If you knew torturing a prisoner would save your mother's life, would you support it," I think just about everyone would say, albeit grudgingly, "yes." If, on the other hand, those people learned that terrorist cell networks are organized in such a way to be able to reorganize quickly when a cell member is captured, and that the window of opportunity to gain useful information is quite small, I expect that the numbers would be smaller. Having done a little study on the subject, I find the accounts you cited to be disturbing, but far from being as brutal as the atrocities that have been committed in the past by other regimes. In the case of prisoners at Gitmo, do I support torture? No. News of torture only fuels the fires of Islama-fascism (i.e., the consequences far outweigh the benefits). In other cases, I think it could be justified or excused. So, should the State be permitted to utilize coercive means up to and including the infliction of extreme discomfort or pain to extract information from detainees in a time of war? To me, it is more about questions of context, benefits, and consequences than "across the board moralism." Jim |
||
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
As much as I don't believe that torture is ever justified and am opposed to all forms of it, and am concerned about some of the results in that poll, I also believe that we have matured a long way from the era of the Dark Age where you used to have ordeals where two people would battle underwater and the winner would simply be the one who put the rival to death, and executions like the tearing of an individual apart by four horse pulling and such. I also believe an incredibly unanimous percentage of Americans are dignified on torture in the most extreme of cases and would condemn those same atrocious acts history carried out previously. I do believe waterboarding is torture, in my opinion, and I am scared that some in this administration like Alberto Gonzalez and Dick Cheney have ardently defended the use of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib in some circumstances, as I find that sends a very bad message to the world in making them feel while we're truly trying to spread the ideals of democracy and peace, our government is not condemning these acts of torture, which I believe hurts our image in the eyes of the international community. Although it may be true that a majority of Americans would support rare types of torture on terrorists, I believe the unanimous majority also condemns the types of practices other regimes of the past committed. John McCain (who I find incredibly hawkish and certainly wouldn't vote for as I believe he's not going to reduce our war economy or stop the "long war") lead an effort to banning all U.S. personnel from engaging in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees recently, which won strong bi-partisan support and while I certainly don't think McCain's bill will in any way prevent torture altogether, it sent a positive message out to the world that we are opposite of the terrorists, and I highly respect McCain's efforts there. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
From the National Catholic Reporter article cited by Sullivan; http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm quote: Regardless of what we each believe or don't believe -- polling data shows that we (Americans) and Christians in particular approve of this ... more... quote: and down the page Sr. Diana Oritz, a victim of torture speaks to American apathy; quote: I also believe that stories of torture in the media are not helping us in the war on terror. But, there's only one way to get them out of the press and that's for it to stop. It's not going to stop unless public opinion changes. Of course the other way is we can start censoring the media -- torture and censorship -- they go together don't they? Now, if I'm not supposed to say Bush Administration -- what is it supposed to be called? |
||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Heard this yesterday http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html -- and since at least one of those signing orders deals specifically with the torture issue and the Patriot Act, this seemed like the proper place to put this. Yes, it definitely brings up Bush, since he is the signer. Has the torture really quit? What about those suicides that occurred -- no one revisited this thread. Doesn't anyone wonder if the US is in violation of International law? Some of the the most learned legal minds in our country question some of the President's actions, as it should be; e.g., system of checks and balances and every President should be "watched." Probably many of the ABA committee were his supporters. Additionally, Pennsylvanian Republican Sen. Arlen Specter is pushing for a a lawsuit against the President challenging him on abuse of executive power and violation of the Constitution by doing these signing orders -- so far about 750 of them -- (which have the effect of delaying the bills passed being put into action -- do we really have a do-nothing Congress or does it just look that way because they can't get their bills into action because of the signing orders)? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-24-lawyers-bush_x.htm Definitely, politics at its peak here I think. So what do you think? [This message has been edited by iliana (07-27-2006 06:59 PM).] |
||
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Iliana, You failed to mention anything of the accompanying story attached to your link. WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation's security. "There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions." A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements. "Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events," said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. "The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11." "Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute." So what do I think? I think it must be a slow news period when we have to bring up threads four months old to go after Georgie again. If he vetoes, he's wrong. If he doesn't veto, he's wrong. The only conclusion must be that Bush is always wrong....a conclusion that I'm sure every Democrat endorses fully. So what's new? |
||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, thank you for reading the comment. I intentionally pulled up the conservative side of this reporting. You should read what the democratic-oriented side is reporting if you want the whole story, but I did not want to post that for fear of you accusing me of being a democrat....lol. The truth is that the most learned legal minds in the nation are questioning the constitutionality of his actions. Do we want this precedent set for future presidents? It gives more control to the executive branch than ever before....are we setting the stage for a dictator by letting this occur? One should not dismiss the importance of this challenge based on personal loyalty to one man....this will affect all future holders of that seat. It is a well known fact that the justice department is stacked with Bush appointees. |
||
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
The precedent was set a good 70 years ago. Anyone remember President Franklin Delano Roosevelt? |
||
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Alicat, according to one of the articles I read, the first time the signing order was used was by Ronald Reagen. That same article said that our current President has used it more times than all the other Presidents put together. Maybe you could elaborate if you know something I don't, please. *** addition*** I just went digging some more and apparantely the signing orders have been used before, just not in place of using a veto, which is the case here. |
||
⇧ top of page ⇧ | ||
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. |