Once more we see an administration run on wishes instead of intelligence. Authoritarianism for the sake of power and a lack of understanding of anything else. A rejection of real knowledge for myth and desire to achieve ends that, while noble on the surface, can’t be obtained because they must be occur in the real world. Pogo was right.
Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation
As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.
The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.
While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.
Some of the study participants argue that interrogation should be restructured using lessons from many fields, including the tricks of veteran homicide detectives, the persuasive techniques of sophisticated marketing and models from American history.
Mr. Krongard even recalls receiving a proposal for help with questioning Qaeda suspects from an American dentist who said he “could create pain no human being could withstand.”
The agency rejected such ideas as ludicrous. But administration lawyers approved a list of harsh methods that have drawn widespread condemnation.
In an April lecture, Philip D. Zelikow, the former adviser to Ms. Rice, said it was a grave mistake to delegate to attorneys decisions on the moral question of how prisoners should be treated.
Mr. Zelikow, who reviewed the C.I.A. detention program as the executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, said the “cool, carefully considered, methodical, prolonged and repeated subjection of captives to physical torment, and the accompanying psychological terror, is immoral.”
And more importantly given the goal of these methods, not very effective. Just more satisfying for those wishing to cause pain to the enemy.
Well, D. (Dick, or Darth?) Cheney just told our freshly graduated officers that the Geneva accords can (essentially) go $%@& itself. I shudder to think of how our troops will be treated when captured in the future, and we will be in no position to complain about it.
#24,
Secondly torture works, if it didn’t it would not be applied by so countries around the world be them friend or foe.
It is used because dictatorships like to keep control over their citizens. A great time for the sadists. Free and democratic countries have no need to control their citizens.
And are you really sure the Constitution of the United States does not cover torture? Second, legally, there is no such category as “enemy combatant”. I suggest you double check your Geneva Conventions, which the Constitution supports, as proof.
What is an “activist judge”?
we never signed the Geneva convention but we do generally abide by it rules
the torture is not being used to control citizens, it is being used to gain information from terrorists about how to prevent attacks on the democracy’s citizens
an activist judge is one that creates law from the bench they can be conservative or liberal
The constitution which you like to quote gives the power to create laws exclusively to congress, expressly the house of representatives. The supreme court and federal courts should only label a law as constitutional or unconstitutional if the latter is true it should go back to congress and be reworked to make it constitutional, a judge should never have the power to create a law from the bench.
the supreme court was activist last year when the struck down the right to property ( a constitutional right ) in favor of govt taking the land to sell for use that creates higher income for the said govt THAT WAS DONE BY A PRIMARILY CONSERVATIVE COURT AND IT WAS WRONG
@7 – I know you are right about the constitution, as I know that document better than you most likely.
My issue isn’t that you are right or wrong, but rather that you an asshole. You value human life based on where that life was born and whether that life’s values match yours. If another human doesn’t meet your criteria of valuable, then you think it’s just an object you can kill without a care.
I take exception to you because I believe that if you really were suddenly the supreme ruler, you’d round me and other peaceful progressives up and place us in camps under some trumped up BS charge as a threat to the state.
The mistake assholes like you make is thinking that my side isn’t as tough as your side. I’ll condemn your speech as hateful and wrong and in the same breath defend your right to speak it. I’ll defend you against harm if you were in danger because you are not just a fellow citizen, but a fellow human, whether I like you or not. But if you ever raised a hand against me, I’d drop you without hesitation and I wouldn’t have a tear in my eye when I told your wife.
I don’t like you. And there is no progressive or liberal code that says I need to. And when other humans advocate the torture and murder of others on nationistic grounds, I have no reason to speak civilly to those people. If you lined up 100 random people, I probably couldn’t find one I’d be willing to say this to, but in your case I have no reservation in saying, “You aren’t as good an American as me.” And that is all there is to it.
So it’s Bush’s fault that he didn’t create an elite team of torturers? MAybe that’s not such a good idea, even if it works well occasionally.
JERUSALEM, May 30 (UPI) — A report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel found there is “no effective barrier” to torture in the country and detailed nine alleged cases.
http://tinyurl.com/2uz952
arguing if torture is effective?!! This isn’t a question of policy folks it is a moral question. The only question is does the ends justify the means answer yes or no then deal with the consequences because both answers have consequences that carry heavy burdens.
Side note: How did the only people who regularly conduct interrogations in this country get factored out of this discussion? I talking about law enforcment….hum I guess some people already made their choice.
you may not like me OhForTheLoveOf but Jesus loves you!
39. Now your asking for it.
23 – Fred Flint – Causing great pain is the real object of the exercise.
I suspect the power rush of causing pain to someone else is just a side benefit. For those who order or condone torture, it is always a PsyOp. The point isn’t to get accurate information. Even the Spanish inquisitors knew that torture only results in the victim saying anything he or she thinks the torturer wants to hear. The real object is to prove you have the power to do it and nobody can stop you. For those who order it done, it’s an aggressive operation against those who would oppose them. For those who actually do the torturing of others, it can become a kind of sick pleasure, according to one doctor who wrote an article about it years ago (wish I could find it on the web).
Point being, it’s an exercise of raw power for its own sake. And that is the ONLY reason it is ordered by men in power, no matter what fairy tails other participants in the crime may tell themselves.
#41
Amen!
That’s why I believe the only reason the Bush Administration is condoning torture by renaming it is to give the young white soldiers the good ole tradition of ruining the lives of brown skinned folk and get away with it.
#40 – No… I’ll let it lie right there. This thread has given me a great deal of mirth and merryment …
But line #39 gave me the biggest laugh of the week. That is classic…
Is Torture Legal under the various scenarios set forth above?==Who knows. Arguing legalities is for lawyers with a set of facts in a court room. Knowing the Constituion, Geneva Conventions, Court Decisions, Congressional actions etc is only the beginning. How they interact and how what body might rule is beyond the certainty of any blog.
Now–what is the morality or effectiveness or adviseability of torture is within our ken? To this issue, I think torture is like abortion. It should be legal but rare to the point of “almost never used”–or used as often as someone in custody knows where a ticking bomb is?. It should be performed only by those qualified to do so and with a specific warrent approved by a court.
The referenced article that no one is discussing is the benefit to be gained by having more skilled interrogators better able to get information from the prisoners we control. Being for something better is hard to argue against.
we never signed the Geneva convention[s] but we do generally abide by it rules
Actually, ratified by the U.S. in 1882
What is an “activist judge”?
Comment by Mr. Fusion
That’s a Neocon term for “a judge who made a ruling *I* disagree with”.
J/P=?
we never signed the Geneva convention[s] but we do generally abide by it rules
Actually, ratified by the U.S. in 1882
What is an “activist judge”?
Comment by Mr. Fusion
That’s a Neocon term for “a judge who made a ruling *I* disagree with”.
J/P=?
#45, J/P
That, my friend, is worth saying twice.
#38,
Side note: How did the only people who regularly conduct interrogations in this country get factored out of this discussion?
Simple. Law enforcement work for US, the people. It isn’t, nor should it ever be, that those who enforce the rules also get to make them. That is Bushes biggest problem, he wants to make the rules as well as have his administration enforce them.
If WE the people decide that we don’t want to live in a country that condones torture I don’t give a shit what any law enforcement official thinks. Their job is to enforce what WE decided the law is, not the other way around. Americans banned cruel and unusual punishment constitutionally.
***
Pmitchell, I realize that you are afraid. To endorse torture is NOT what your messiah preached. Although so many Christians abhor being called hypocrites, your Christ did tell you to turn the other cheek. So before telling others how your Christ loves them, think what your Christ’s message was. Now live it.
PMitchellsaid, Secondly torture works, if it didn’t it would not be applied by so countries around the world be them friend or foe.
I don’t believe that for a second. I’ve lived in countries where torture is the primary tool of law enforcement and those countries suck when it comes to catching criminals.
Read this article before you make declarations that torture works:
http://tinyurl.com/yvkz5n
You think you know more about torture than those experts?