Quote :

"US President George W Bush has defended his government's treatment of detainees after a media allegation that the CIA ran secret jails in eastern Europe. "We do not torture," Mr Bush told reporters during a visit to Panama. He said enemies were plotting to hurt the US and his government would pursue them, but would do so "under the law"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415132.stm

I thought the administration was going with "sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do". But now, apparently, we don't torture people. This seems contractictory to assorted photographic evidence from a few years back, plus the whole not committing to not torturing thing.

Thoughts?

11/7/2005 1:58:02 PM

How many torture threads have been started this month?

11/7/2005 2:03:19 PM

Quote :

"the whole not committing to not torturing thing."

which would also ban making a deal with detainees i.e. "you tell us what you know and we'll only give you a year of prison"

and the official white-house line is that the pictures were not evidence of an officially sanctioned torture policy, but rather a few bad apples.


so, nothing contradictory here.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 2:04 PM. Reason : s]

11/7/2005 2:03:40 PM

Quote :

"How many torture threads have been started this month?"

i dunno, but it is probably a smaller number than the number of people the US gov't has tortured this month

11/7/2005 2:04:38 PM

i think it's funny that bush says we don't torture (even though we probably have to in some cases) yet he's asking congress for an exemption from the anti-torture bill. this president's administration is full of toolbags.

11/7/2005 2:05:24 PM

Quote :

"yet he's asking congress for an exemption from the anti-torture bill."

which (as i already explained) would also prohibit the gov. from making a deal with terrorists i.e. "you tell us what you know and you only get a year or two of prison time"

so yea - whereas you win the soundbite battle, the administration's policy on the anti-torture bill is pretty level headed.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 2:08 PM. Reason : s]

11/7/2005 2:07:50 PM

it's not torture

it's "enhanced interrogation techniques"

duh

11/7/2005 2:44:19 PM

Quote :

"which would also ban making a deal with detainees i.e. "you tell us what you know and we'll only give you a year of prison""

i havent heard about this...where did you see it?

..i would think that if that were the case, then they would make it very clear...rather then just saying "we need to protect the american people"

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 3:02 PM. Reason : df]

11/7/2005 2:54:03 PM

Quote :

"which would also ban making a deal with detainees i.e. "you tell us what you know and we'll only give you a year of prison" "

i take it you haven't read the bill, it makes no mention of that anywhere at all.

Bill:

Quote :

"Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would do two things: one, establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees; and, two, prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the Government. It is pretty simple and straightforward. "

for specifics on the field manual, http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html

full text of amendment: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109aRfTpJ:e2854:

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 3:24 PM. Reason : text]

11/7/2005 3:23:40 PM

Quote :

"i take it you haven't read the bill, it makes no mention of that anywhere at all. "

i know i havent....thats why i was asking. Excoriator tends to make things up sometimes, so thats why i was asking.

11/7/2005 3:25:08 PM

i wasn't responding to you with that remark, i was responding to excoriator :-P

11/7/2005 4:00:48 PM

yeah, thats what i figured....i just wanted to clarify that i hadn't read the bill either.

11/7/2005 4:01:55 PM

after 45 seconds of review, here's my first best guess

Quote :

"No... form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be... exposed to... disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

I'll post more as i research.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 4:36 PM. Reason : s]

11/7/2005 4:35:30 PM

where did you find that?

11/7/2005 4:39:51 PM

Field Manual 34-52, Appendix J

11/7/2005 4:45:17 PM

it looks like that passage is taken from the geneva convention...something we have already agreed to and "apparently" adhere to.

why would they reject the amendment because of that?

11/7/2005 4:50:34 PM

because the detainees are not subject to the geneva convention.


see here's the problem:

1. You can't make plea bargains with prisoners of war
2. McCain's legislation would classify Zarqawi/Osama/Kahlid as a POW
3. So now we can't make a plea bargain with them in an attempt to get info; we just have to ask nicely and can't reduce punishment if they agree to cooperate.

11/7/2005 5:02:01 PM

I'd like to know the amount of legalize it took to make the "handcuffing one's hands behind their back then hanging the person from said hancuffs" stress position "not torture."

11/7/2005 5:11:58 PM

i like how you're trying to dodge the plea bargain issue

11/7/2005 5:23:08 PM

that's because you are wrong about the amendment.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1567&issue_id=70

Quote :

"SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States. (c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States. SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section. (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section. (d) 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. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm

Quote :

"FM 34-52 INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION Chapter 1 Interrogation and the Interrogator Interrogation is the art of questioning and examining a source to obtain the maximum amount of usable information. The goal of any interrogation is to obtain usable and reliable information, in a lawful manner and in the least amount of time, which meets intelligence requirements of any echelon of command. Sources may be civilian internees, insurgents, EPWs, defectors, refugees, displaced persons, and agents or suspected agents. A successful interrogation produces needed information which is timely, complete, clear, and accurate. An interrogation involves the interaction of two personalities: the source and the interrogator. Each contact between these two differs to some degree because of their individual characteristics and capabilities, and because the circumstances of each contact and the physical environment vary. "

i've read most of the manual now, and i can't find where a detainee is granted the rights of a POW. but maybe you can find it.

so, where's your argument now?

11/7/2005 5:43:06 PM

Quote :

"i like how you're trying to dodge the plea bargain issue"

OH, YOU MEAN THERE'S A CERTAIN UTILITY IN SELLING OUT THE BELIEFS WHICH WE AS AMERICANS HOLD DEAR? WELL THEN, THAT'S A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.

11/7/2005 5:52:53 PM

Quote :

"i've read most of the manual now, and i can't find where a detainee is granted the rights of a POW. but maybe you can find it. so, where's your argument now?"

THAT'S WHY MCCAIN INTRODUCED HIS TERROR LEGISLATION YOU FUCKIN MORON

Quote :

"OH, YOU MEAN THERE'S A CERTAIN UTILITY IN SELLING OUT THE BELIEFS WHICH WE AS AMERICANS HOLD DEAR? "

are you saying that using a plea bargain to encourage a terrorist to divulge information is "selling out dear american beliefs"?

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 6:49 PM. Reason : s]

11/7/2005 6:48:40 PM

The crux of the argument was

Quote :

"are you saying that using a plea bargain torture to encourage a terrorist to divulge information is "selling out dear american beliefs"

11/7/2005 6:52:02 PM

no the crux of the argument is that mccain's amendment prohibits the use of plea bargains while questioning terrorists and other detainees

this is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM and i don't know why the hell you're refusing to give it any consideration

11/7/2005 6:53:38 PM

Could you link one legitimate news source that confirms your position?

11/7/2005 6:54:10 PM

i just quoted the fucking field manual!

and you can read the amendment about 3 posts above!

jesus. do you really need your info spoonfed? I realize that its disconcerting to find out that an "anti-torture" bill has problems, but sometimes you've got to lay off the rhetoric for a moment and consider the TEXT of legislation beyond its simple title.

11/7/2005 6:56:22 PM

oh.

thats what I get for not reading any of the post.

11/7/2005 7:00:44 PM

hey i'm curious, the field manual, says it's from 1985, has it been updated since then? also, mccain says his proposed amendment still leaves open the ability to change it anytime afterwards, why wouldn't they just pass the bill then change it?

11/7/2005 7:01:16 PM

Okay. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're correct.

Why have none of the senators and nobody from the White House even MENTIONED this fact to support their opposition? I haven't seen mention of it anywhere else and I would THINK that, especially since they're grasping at straws already, they would go for any additional reasoning they could find to oppose the ban.

11/7/2005 7:03:00 PM

^ I'm with you. Sounds like noise to me.

11/7/2005 7:19:24 PM

once again, you fool, there is no instance in the manual that states person under the control of the department of defense are treated as POW's under the Geneva Conventions.

It says nothing that a detainee will receive all the benefits of a POW, such as the ones you use. Instead the Army Field Manual is the guide for successful and legal interrogation methods. The only rights the detainees are gaining that they currently may not have are basic human (and Constitutional) rights. Read the 8th Amendment and tell me how it applies solely to citizens.

why don't you actually read the manual AND the amendment and you'll see why torture is useless. INSTEAD OF BASING YOUR ARGUMENT ON PERSONAL BELIEFS.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 7:32 PM. Reason : r]

11/7/2005 7:26:27 PM

McCain's amendment:

Quote :

"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

Field Manual:

Quote :

"No... form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be... exposed to... disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

/thread

11/7/2005 7:39:09 PM

fill in the elipses plz

11/7/2005 7:39:39 PM

the elipses are prohibitions of torture.

i haven't filled them in because my argument is not about torture.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 7:41 PM. Reason : s]

11/7/2005 7:40:18 PM

REVISIONIST

11/7/2005 7:46:10 PM

YES, THAT IS WHAT I LIKE TO CALL THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, WHICH WE ALREADY ABIDE BY.

NOWHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT (ARMY FIELD MANUAL) WILL YOU FIND THE DEFINITION OF A PRISONER OF WAR CONTRARY TO (OR EVEN ALTERED) THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. AN INSURGENT IS CLASSIFIED AS A PRISONER OF WAR IN NEITHER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOR THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL ON INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION.

THE POINT MCCAIN IS MAKING IS THAT THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DO NOT GIVE INSURGENTS PROTECTION FROM CRUEL AND INHUMANE PUNISHMENTS, AKA: TORTURE. THE AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THEM THE RIGHT GRANTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT STRICTLY PROHIBITS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

AND I QUOTE:

Quote :

"Article [VIII.] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

HERE THE GOVERNMENT IS BEING STRICTLY PROHIBITED FROM INFLICTING TORTURE ON ANYONE. UNDERSTAND THAT, ANYONE.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 7:48 PM. Reason : clarified for stupids]

11/7/2005 7:47:28 PM

nobody here is supporting torture so who the fuck are you typing in caps at

if anything, i should be yelling at you for refusing to consider the fact that the geneva convention prohibits the use of plea bargains and that mccain's bill will afford all the protections (including the plea bargain part) to insurgents and terrorists.

i'm just as opposed to torture as you are, but I happen to support the use of plea bargains.


DO YOU?

11/7/2005 7:50:01 PM

once again, in neither the amendment nor the field manual is a detainee granted the status of a POW.

11/7/2005 7:52:33 PM

McCain's amendment:

Quote :

"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

Field Manual:

Quote :

"No... form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be... exposed to... disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

11/7/2005 7:52:59 PM

but if they are not prisoners of war, then that clause does not apply to them.

and certain detainees are not prisoners of war.

11/7/2005 7:54:25 PM

Quote :

"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

11/7/2005 7:58:19 PM

"No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

the coercion statement refers explicitly to POW's only. if you are not a POW, then you are no prevented from being coerced.

11/7/2005 8:00:58 PM

That's just the starter.

Then we have to deal with the 500 page United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

11/7/2005 8:02:37 PM

Can you quote me that in the McCain Amendment?

Quote :

"Sources may be civilian internees, insurgents, EPWs, defectors, refugees, displaced persons, and agents or suspected agents."

from the glossary:

Quote :

"EPW enemy prisoner of war "

why are insurgents differentiated from EPW's? oh, that's because they are not POW's.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 8:05 PM. Reason : d]

11/7/2005 8:03:38 PM

its at the very end. scroll up.

11/7/2005 8:04:43 PM

Insurgents aren't considered POWs and thats one of the problems global Human Rights organizations have with this Administration.

11/7/2005 8:11:28 PM

okay, so, because you could not cite how McCain is giving POW status to detainees in the AFMII, can you please quote from "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. "

11/7/2005 8:11:41 PM

McCain IS giving POW status to detainees. THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF HIS AMENDMENT

jesus christ

11/7/2005 8:15:15 PM

WHERE?

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 8:18 PM. Reason : HIS WHOLE POINT IS TO STOP AND PREVENT TORTURE]

11/7/2005 8:17:26 PM

Yes. We do torture people Mr. Bush. Stop lying.

11/7/2005 8:17:49 PM