Posted on 09/19/2006 5:21:12 AM PDT by billorites
There is a lot of confusion in the debate over how far the law should allow CIA officers to go when interrogating terrorists.
Let us be clear that we do not advocate torture. We advocate that the law be written to protect CIA officers from criminal prosecution if they use certain techniques that could be interpreted as forbidden under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
That article's vague wording forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
What does that mean? Who knows?
The Bush administration has authorized six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" to be used by the CIA on only a dozen al-Qaida members. The techniques include grabbing a prisoner's shirt and shaking him, slapping, slapping the stomach (punches are not allowed), extended standing (which might include sleep deprivation), containment in a cold cell, and waterboarding. Not even Human Rights Watch argues that the techniques go beyond those listed.
Common Article 3 conceivably forbids all of these techniques.
Many former CIA officers have said that the best interrogation technique is to be kind and build rapport over time. But what happens when you don't have time?
Last fall a well-respected former Navy officer and torture opponent said that harsh interrogation techniques would be OK in a "ticking time bomb" scenario.
"It's a one in a million issue, and if something was one in a million situation, I would support whatever needs to be done," he said. "But that's a one in a million situation."
Those are the words of Sen. John McCain, who now proposes outlawing techniques he himself would approve in desperate situations.
We agree with Sen. McCain that aggressive interrogation techniques tend to be unproductive and ought not be used. We also agree with him that in extraordinary circumstances, aggressive techniques should be an option.
We disagree that Congress ought to outlaw these techniques for the primary goal of enhancing America's reputation.
If Sen. McCain "would support whatever needs to be done" to save American lives, then why does he want to make it a crime to do just that -- a crime that would subject our CIA officers to criminal prosecution if they use any technique that could be interpreted as "humiliating and degrading"?
McCain admitted in his autobiography that torture worked on him; he gave the Vietnamese ship placement of our fleet.
But now he says that torture doesn't work.
Remember this the next time a leftist talks about torture.
What I do not understand is why so many insist that the Geneva Convention trumps the Constitution of the United States. I have been accussed of being slow, stupid, anti-Semitic, and having the sense of a 13 year old by people on FR. Can someone explain to me why everyone thinks the Geneva Convention trumps the Constitution.
Am I the only one who sympathized with Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men"?
As a tool in the hands of a trained, detached interrogator, torture works on over 99% of subjects. People who say otherwise are either referring to torture by brutal thugs who don't know what they're doing, or they're simply lying.
The only real considerations about torture are the moral aspects, and the fact that you need trained personnel to do it, which is another moral issue. Do you torture, ever? If so, you need people who know how to do it right. But then again, what kind of society keeps trained torturers on call? These aren't insignificant issues, and it's the reason we have traditionally outlawed the practice, effective as it may be.
There is conflicting information about this matter. McCain says he gave ship movements but only on ships he knew were already moved from the locations he gave.
And frankly, I don't blame him for caving to torture. It was brutal, what was done to him.
But for him to turn around and claim that torture doesn't work is simply wrong.
It doesn't exactly "trump" the constitution, but rather falls into the same category as the constitution because of our founding document's inclusion of a process for signing and approving treaties. Because the conventions have been signed and approved under the constitution, they are considered to have the same weight (except when they directly contradict the constitution, in which case they should have never been ratified).
Does that help?
A society that is under threat from and has troops engaged in war with a determined enemy, that's what kind.
Torture yields tainted information. Interrogation drugs do not. The only reason anyone would use torture is for the fun of it.
A society that is under threat from and has troops engaged in war with a determined enemy, that's what kind.
The question is both rhetorical and loaded. You could as easily ask 'What kind of society keeps 3000 nuclear weapons on hand' or 'What kind of society shoots bow and arrow wielding natives for their land'?
Earth is a rough place, and human history is a bloody, uncompromising affair. We decide what we think the times require, and act accordingly. We want to be a moral society that can look itself in the mirror, and can be an inspiration to others. Still, anyone that is alive today is here because their ancestors weren't above slitting throats to make sure they came out on top.
Where we draw the line on physical coercion is tricky, and the moral considerations for or against aren't as simple as people make them out to be. That's all I'm saying.
I knew what you were saying SW. Agree with you.
Yes it does. Thank you.
Who were we torturing in 2000 or 2001. Our reputation won't be changed, it doesn't matter what we do. I don't know for sure why the world loves to hate the US but I'd reckon it is pure jealousy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.