Posted on 11/28/2005 8:26:03 AM PST by Millee
In a remarkable story published on Thanksgiving, The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration "decided to charge (suspected terrorist) Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of al-Qaida who had been subjected to harsh questioning . . ."
Harsh questioning - as in what most of us would describe as torture, or at least its close cousin.
One of the two al-Qaida honchos, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has in fact become the poster boy for "waterboarding," a technique of submerging a prisoner's face in water so he experiences the sensation of drowning. News reports have said Mohammed, the alleged architect of 9/11, was subjected to this treatment after his capture in early 2003.
Did the use of such rough techniques on al-Qaida leaders save America from an attempted terrorist attack by Padilla, as some defenders of the interrogation policies may well contend? We may never know, since the actual charges against Padilla are unrelated to the bombing plots described by Justice Department officials after his arrest three years ago. As far as we're concerned, however, the use of torture doesn't become acceptable just because someone may be able to point to valuable information obtained through its use.
It goes without saying that torture sometimes produces useful revelations. The more important question is whether the dangers of embracing physical coercion on prisoners outweigh the likely benefits. And we believe the answer to that is yes, they do.
Among those dangers: Torture makes prisoners talk, but in the process produces much unreliable, bogus information, too; torture dehumanizes both its victims and those who inflict it, and leads the latter down a slippery slope of moral corruption; and finally, torture provides the enemy with justification for tormenting our own captured men and women.
Given such risks, the brutalization of prisoners should be outlawed even for the likes of Mohammed. The Senate approved such a ban earlier this month (although with Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard dissenting). Now it's time for the House to follow suit.
To be fair, there is one situation in which most Americans would almost certainly support brutal interrogation tactics. It's known as the "ticking time bomb" scenario - when a terrorist is picked up just after a bomb is planted at an unknown location, threatening thousands of lives. In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, the syndicated columnist Charles Kraut- hammer points out that Israel uses coercion on terrorists under certain conditions. He details one case in which the torture of a Palestinian involved in kidnapping an Israeli corporal resulted in locating his whereabouts.
But of course Israel is the target of literally scores of terrorist attacks every year, so the possibility of capturing a terrorist who has, say, just dropped off a colleague who will detonate a bomb is real. The likelihood of that happening in the United States is remote - but if Congress wants to include a narrow exemption for a genuine ticking time bomb scenario, that's fine with us.
It so happens, however, that none of the controversial cases involving allegations of authorized abuse or torture of enemy combatants by U.S. personnel - of al-Qaida leaders and certain prisoners at Guantanamo - involves a ticking time bomb.
Those cases shock the conscience - and should be banned.
The Denver Post has always been the lead "fish wrapper" in Denver, but lately the News has been giving them a run for their $$.
It's a shame that someone else has to the work for your simple mind. America would never be safe if it had to rely on dorks like you. Sometimes war is messy and sometime things are done you don't like, but are you interested in living in an America that is safe?
Again, I ask you to present clear cut examples of this accusation...Also, what prevents a lunatic cop from arresting anyone he chooses for any crime?
these writers have no clue of reality
"Why are we so worried about what the rest of the world thinks of the United States?"
Because we have to live in the rest of the world. Ten times a week we want things from other countries and despite the ineptitide of the U.N. we usually get help.
But that's not my only concern- our moral strength in situations like Iraq comes from the assumption that we are different - that with us in charge for a bit the evils and the excesses will stop and and a new beginning can be had. That's why it's important that the troops over there aren't looting left and right and why it's important that they don;t torture.
I am also concerned because I know that not everybody arrested by the police is guilty so I figure not everybody arrested by the military is guilty either. It is a serious and terrible sin to torture an innocent person.
Idiots who want terrorist to have civil rights are torturing me.
Who gives the CIA worldwide jurisdiction? Why takes the CIA the right to escape US legislation by building prisons in Romania? There have been laws made, for well reasons. The most important is to prevent innocents from being punished, and the second is to show others that the western world is better than states like Iran.
I don´t doubt the motives, but I think the regulations we have is exactly what´s the main difference between our culture and ´their´ culture.
If the Clinton Administration taught us anything it is that prosecuting terrorist acts in a court of law does nothing to stop future terrorist acts. The first WTC bombing was prosecuted as such and led directly to the second and successful attempt on those buildings and more...We cannot let the enemy come to us, we have to take the battle to the enemy.
Just like in any other war...when the war is over the enemy prisoners will be released. When the "War on Terror" is over Gitmo can be emptied. To do otherwise is suicide...
These terrorists animals aren't American citizens, therefore not protected by the constitution.
Sorry, that's wrong. It's true that the Constitution confers some special protections on citizens, but the parts having to do with due process apply to "persons," not just to citizens. (That doesn't mean that "enemy combatants" have full due process rights; see my previous post.)
Besides, the entire theory of constitutional government is that government has power only over those who have consented to being governed by it. In this sense, the U.S. government has less authority over non-citizens than over citizens, because no non-citizen has ceded any authority to it. (Of course this doesn't mean our government can't wage war; that's not an exercise of jurisdictional authority.)
B.S. America is the only country that gets attacked by it's own media for what every other country does in the world as well, in fact what we call 'torture' is being kind by their standards.
Please provide evidence where this is the case and where the people responsible have not been punished...The passing of the asinine McCain bill on torture is similar to the stupidity of passing "hate" crime bills throughout the nation...
These people are unfit to hold office.
Ok, tell me whether Spain, Britain, France, Germany, Italy or others used torture on their prisoners. We´re not talking about Russia. We´re talking about NATO/EU countries with a certain civilized standard.
Thanks
There's TORTURE and then there is "rough" or "harsh" questioning and related interrogation methods.
Personally, I wouldn't have any problem nailing somebody to a cross with my own hands if it would stop another incident where thousands of American civlian men and women an dpossibly children were incinerated in another 9-11 attack by their fiends.
Realistically, this would never be permitted, but any law which revents the full utlization of whatever techniques we have ever historically against such villains - prior to actions by the radical Courts of the late 1900's - shouold be employed.
I don't care if we TORTURE these scumbags, it keeps us all safe and secure.
Then why don't we need an anti-looting law as well?
freeper Jim_Curtis made an interesting post/point here:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1528700/posts?page=15#15
(snip)
Maybe that is why he has been going around saying "torture doesn't work" ( a silly and obvious lie that other Republicans are going around repeating now ) because if it is said that torture does work, he is not a hero and actually quite pathetic to allow himself to be taken and possibly used as a bargaining chip. I'm sure he had to convince a lot of people that he would never let himself be taken alive before they let him fly.
Very interesting food for thought.
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.