Do you like the fact Bush can torture people? (moral, Earth)

[Rex]

US memo says Bush not restricted by torture bans



WASHINGTON - President George W Bush, as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by US and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.

The 56-page memo to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war," overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a US federal law against torture.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," stated the memo, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.

These assertions, along with others made in a 2002 Justice Department memo, drew condemnation by human rights activists who accused the administration of hunting for legal loopholes for using torture.

"It's like saying the Earth is flat. That's the equivalent of what they're doing with saying that the prohibition of torture doesn't apply to the president," said Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights.

Media reports of the two memos prompted a fierce exchange in a congressional hearing, at which Attorney General John Aschcroft refused to release the documents while Democrats accused the Bush administration of undermining prohibition on use of torture.

The administration says it observes the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and other situations where the treaty applies and that it treats terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in a way consistent with the spirit of the accords.

The March 2003 memo was written by a "working group" of civilian and military lawyers named by the Pentagon's general counsel.

It came to light as the Pentagon reviewed interrogation techniques used on foreign terrorism suspects at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid concerns raised by lawyers within the military and others about interrogation techniques approved by Rumsfeld that deviated from standard practice.

"It may be the case that only successful interrogations can provide the information necessary to prevent the success of covert terrorist attacks upon the United States and its citizens," the memo stated.

"Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield," the memo stated.

The memo labelled as unconstitutional any laws "that seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States."

The memo offered numerous explanations for why US officials and military personnel were immune from bans on torture under US and international law. The memo recommended a presidential directive from Bush allowing for exercise of this power by "subordinates," although it remained unknown whether Bush ever signed such a document.

"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts," said Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch's Washington advocacy director.

"They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Malinowski added.

Amnesty International called for a special counsel to investigate "whether administration officials are criminally liable for acts of torture or guilty of war crimes."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld in April 2003 approved 24 "humane" interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, four of which required Rumsfeld's personal review before being used. Whitman said 34 techniques were considered by a working group of Defence Department legal and policy experts before Rumsfeld approved the final list.

"None was determined to be tortuous in nature (by the working group). They were all found to be within internationally accepted practice," Whitman said.

[Mr Spinkles]

I most certainly do not like the fact that Bush (or anyone) can torture people....two possibilities are a)he's a really mean person who likes to torture people or b)he/his staff must think torture is a measure that must be taken to get information on terrorists. Letter b. is more likely, though almost as disturbing.

Torture should never be used, even to prevent another terrorist attack....when we stoop to their level of disregard for human life, only then do the terrorists truly win.

So what type of torture exactly are we talking about? Sleep deprivation, and things of that nature....or worse? The article did not seem very specific here.

Good article, Rex! Where did it come from?

[Rex]

It was in a newspaper.. Seems like it would have been more put out, but you know how politics are.

[Mr Spinkles]

But Rex, which newspaper? And what kinds of torture does the Pentagon want to use in interrogations? There is a big difference between electric shock torture and sleep deprivation.

Originally Posted by Rex_Admin

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld in April 2003 approved 24 "humane" interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, four of which required Rumsfeld's personal review before being used. Whitman said 34 techniques were considered by a working group of Defence Department legal and policy experts before Rumsfeld approved the final list.

Which techniques are on this list of 34?

[Fra.Morelia]

Actually, sleep deprivation is legit, last time I checked. And yes, Bush can torture people. So could Clinton. So could Bush Sr, Reagan, and on thru history.
The reason that that clause is there is this: If a man has the plan to kill millions in his head and won't talk, is it wrong to torture him to save those millions? YES. It is. It will never be right. But I will tell you that I would be the first in the line to take the thumb screws to him. Americans sleep soundly at night because of men and women who might be damning them selves with atrocities to save the lives of American citizens. It is absolutely horrible, but we might see the day when it is absolutely neccesary.
What bothers me the most is this: our POWs seem to have been safer in the Iraqi reguars hands than theirs did in ours. As american serviceman, we always tryto be the better person, and what went on disturbs me deeply. Far more so than Bush's right that he will likely never use.
A man in that posistion could never actualy lift the geneva bans. A sick Private First Class could do far worse. A position of power almost forces one to play nice, after all.

[Alaric]

Originally Posted by Fra.Morelia

If a man has the plan to kill millions in his head and won't talk, is it wrong to torture him to save those millions? YES. It is. It will never be right. But I will tell you that I would be the first in the line to take the thumb screws to him. Americans sleep soundly at night because of men and women who might be damning them selves with atrocities to save the lives of American citizens.

This makes no sense - 'necessary evil' is an oxymoron. If it is wrong, or evil, then it is because it is the wrong action to take in a situation - some other action would have had better results. If you thought that potentially saving lives was more important than justice and human rights, then you believe that it is right to torture. If you believe that human rights and justice come first, then it is wrong to torture. You can't have both - someone who tortures others in order to save other people's lives and at the risk of his own future is still immoral in every way. If you think he's a hero, then you are accepting that what he did was right and that anyone should do the same in that situation.

Frankly, I don't think people have a right to sleep soundly in their beds if it takes torture to accomplish it. Better to decide on universal moral guidelines, like the UN conventions, then make every decision within them.

[Fra.Morelia]

Alaric:
1: the UN leaves us on ou own to supply 95% of the man power. Always has, always will. They are a pointless orginization whose sole role is to make sure that America really can't haul off and annhialate a country.Which we don't really like to do anyways, believe it or not.
2:Neccesary evil makes no sense? putting a round thru a man is evil. end of argument. but i have no qualm doing it when he is trying to kill my friends. End of argument. It is evil, but it is neccessary if I wish to see my family again. Thus a neccesary evil.
3:More fun facts about the UN. All of the people who abide by it are never going to be our enemies. Geneva convention. N.Korea? Nope. Taliban? Do i even need to answer? Iraq? Not too bad, but they weren't members. Fair sports but bad players if you get my drift.
These people will kill you. They will kil you and your whole family and lay everything we love to waste simpy because we have it and they don't. If you won't kill for your family, more the pity for them, but don't worry; we will kill for your family so you don't have to. Itisn't about how it is wrong to have it if it costs lives. It is about the fact that there are people who will take your life for having it, thus it is necessary to remove them from the annals of life, love, and everything as fast as possible.
The great thing about america is this: you can think we should let these lunatics murder us. you can even pop some corn, grab a beer, and sit back and wait for them to kill everyone you love. But the fact is, they aren't likey to get the chance, cuz we are gonna kil them first every single time we get the chance.

[Alaric]

If "putting a round thru a man" is necessary to defend your family (and your family hasn't provoked it yadda yadda fine print and so on), then it is NOT evil. Just ask yourself whether you would want it to be a general principle that anyone in your stead should do it - if so, then it isn't evil. Obviously, if every person just went around killing people who looked a threat to them, it would be chaos, since most people's judgement is pretty poor. Same with countries - imagine if they all adopted the principle of unilateral preemptive strikes. Much better if there is some kind of universally agreed upon procedure for tackling perceived threats. For me, it would be enough with an agreement among democratic nations - dictatorships shouldn't have a veto on that sort of thing, which is my major problem with the UN. But the claim of 'defending your family' or other emotional drivel doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you like. If something is evil, then it isn't necessary, and if it's necessary, then it isn't evil.

[Fra.Morelia]

Well, semantics aside.... either it is evil and i would do it, or it is necessary and I would do it. either way, bring on the hot irons, man. now, I am not saying that this is how POWs should be treated, as they have been honorably defeated and it is on the field of battle. That is honor and it is extended to those who fought honorably, a terrorist, however, has forfeited his honor, and if it will save many lives, should be dealt with by what ever means are neccessary. I do not consider myself an evil man, but I am pragmatic in the extreme, and I have been willing to defend those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. By virtue of American citizenship, you have accepted that protection(if you are american, i make no presumption). It is your right to protest how I go about, and I enjoy the fact that we can have this discussion, Alaric. You seem to be a pretty bright chum, semantics just relaly don't matter to me. I know what I would do, and I know what I would expect another to do in my stead. They are the same thing. So I guess, in the end, it would be necessary, not evil.

[Alaric]

No, I'm half Dane, half New Zealander.
I had forgotten you're a marine - so it certainly seems curious that you would call your job 'evil', no matter what you mean by it!

Being pragmatic shouldn't be any different than being good - if saving lives is the number one priority (which I disagree with), then anyone not torturing someone when it would definately save lives should be considered evil (or at least 'bad', if evil is too strong a word). But for me, a society deserves life and security only when it has earned it by being humane and just. Better that a community dies attempting to live ideally then lives by torturing and killing people that might be a threat. But of course, the just society is usually not threatened for two reasons: firstly, noone has a grudge against them, and second, because since they cannot take the easy way out and torture people, they are forced to involve themselves in the goings-on around them, constantly nipping potential problems in the bud, thereby avoiding threats altogether. If New York gets wiped out by a nuke, you don't say "Damn, we should have tortured some more," you say "Damn, how did we let it come to this?"

I'm also a bit surprised that you would want torture, given your position - the enemy could easily use your logic against you and torture you as a warning for others for "stealing their oil" or "violating their land", thereby "protecting that which they love."

I would actually love to know also, Morelia, how your superiors talk to you about these things - do they stress the patriotic, moral side of it, is it more business-like and 'let's get this over with', or what? Are you constantly told you're on the right side, or God's side, or does it just depend on the guy talking? Do they say officially "Don't torture", then scoff at it as naive in informal settings? How many believe they're doing a 'necessary evil'?