NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to Republican Sen. John McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel.

Is there any legitimate reason to allow torture in he first place? The latest defense was that "we can't afford to let the terrorists know what we are capable of," even though "We do not torture." 308-122 in the house... what is the logic?

The US banned torture years ago.

This legislation is completely ridiculous. We are not torturing anyone and this bill will threaten our ability to secure the safety of our citizens.

Honestly... Even though we signed this, I doubt prisons like Gitmo, in Iraq, or in “secret Europeans prisons” will follow this. Its ironic that we the “champions of freedom”, “Defenders of the Geneva Code” and those who wished to “close the rape rooms” make our own.

Honestly... Even though we signed this, I doubt prisons like Gitmo, in Iraq, or in “secret Europeans prisons” will follow this. Its ironic that we the “champions of freedom”, “Defenders of the Geneva Code” and those who wished to “close the rape rooms” make our own.

Gitmo? Give me a break. Public humiliation is NOT torture. And anyway all soldiers involved in "sodomizing" prisoners with brooms (the only thing that happened which could come close to being considered torture) were court marshalled. Untill torture is defined it is absurd to have legislation banning it.

How about the waterboarding, the dog-assaults, the rapes, the gratuitous leg-breakings? You say "toilet plunger up the arse" and I'm thinking you're mistaking the NYPD for the Army.

For them public humiliation is. The entire Arab world was enraged about stories of pissing on the Koran or throwing the Koran into the toilet. Physical beatings were also reported. The cells they put in are like that of the Bastille, dirty, small, and dark. The most effective means of “torture” has been where the soldiers use to blast Christina Agulera music four days straight causing sleep deprivation and insanity. That was about a year ago and was ended about a year ago as well. They obviously had to stop that.

How about the waterboarding, the dog-assaults, the rapes, the gratuitous leg-breakings? You say "toilet plunger up the arse" and I'm thinking you're mistaking the NYPD for the Army.

waterboarding-I don't have a problem with it.
dog-assaults-Not heard of it happening in a prison setting and could care less if went on in a mission setting. For God's sake we use dogs on our own criminals.
Leg-breakings? again not heard of it happening.

By the way the Red Cross is on my side as the have absolutely no problem with anything they've seen in Iraq (which is alot more than you or me or CNN for that matter)

For them public humiliation is.

Should we really care? Are you forgetting who these people are? They are willing to blow themselves up and kill inoccent women and children in the proccess. They do so without regret or remorse and now we want to bestow American rights on these animals!

Should we really care? Are you forgetting who these people are? They are willing to blow themselves up and kill inoccent women and children in the proccess. They do so without regret or remorse and now we want to bestow American rights on these animals!

Ahem.

These suspects.

On these _suspects_.

edit: and I believe that some of the 'American rights' you imply were considered to be self-evident, inaliable? Or does it only count sometimes?

Elgesh']Ahem.

These suspects.

On these _suspects_.

edit: and I believe that some of the 'American rights' you imply were considered to be self-evident, inaliable? Or does it only count sometimes?

Absolutely the only "count" sometimes. While we believe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines is self-evident we also believe they are relative to the rights of others. That's why we have a death penalty in this country.

Medeo-Persia

First off if we want to win the war we have to win the hearts and minds of all Arabs. We have to legitimize ourselves. If they hear that we are doing this they will be less likely to help us and more likely to turn into insurgents. Also not all Arabs are terrorists. If we generalize they may become terrorists.
Next if we bring terrorists to American soil we have to treat them with the same rights as Americans. This was established in the late 1800’s shortly after the civil war. Chinese immigrants and illegal immigrants were often taken advantage of. Some California cops pulled a “Rodney King” on a Chinese immigrant and claimed the man had no rights. The case went to the Supreme Court where they ruled all people on American soil, citizens or not, legal or illegal, friend of foe, were bestowed with the full rights of all Americans. If you want to torture them and abuse their American rights your going to have to over turn that ruling.

Here is some photo's of troops terrorizing an Iraqi family:

http://sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/us_troops_terrorize_iraqi_family/

;)

Absolutely the only "count" sometimes. While we believe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines is self-evident we also believe they are relative to the rights of others. That's why we have a death penalty in this country.

We also have due process. Who determines what rights the detainees have? How many of them are there because they were indicted by a grand jury? Does outsourcing our prisons outsource human rights as well?

B]Medeo-Persia[/B]

First off if we want to win the war we have to win the hearts and minds of all Arabs. We have to legitimize ourselves. If they hear that we are doing this they will be less likely to help us and more likely to turn into insurgents.

Tell that to the 52% of the Iraqi population that has heard these things, yet still want us there.

Also not all Arabs are terrorists. If we generalize they may become terrorists.

I never made the generalization. All of my remarks have been directed only to people who want to brutaly take the lives of innocent people.

Next if we bring terrorists to American soil we have to treat them with the same rights as Americans. This was established in the late 1800’s shortly after the civil war. Chinese immigrants and illegal immigrants were often taken advantage of. Some California cops pulled a “Rodney King” on a Chinese immigrant and claimed the man had no rights. The case went to the Supreme Court where they ruled all people on American soil, citizens or not, legal or illegal, friend of foe, were bestowed with the full rights of all Americans. If you want to torture them and abuse their American rights your going to have to over turn that ruling.

Most terrorists at Gitmo have not to my knowledge ever seen this country they seek to destroy.

Yes you did generalize. You claimed they all wanted to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians, which is not true. Some do, some wish to kill Americans, some wish to make money by fighting, some were deceived by terrorist propaganda, and some are even innocent. What a thought, innocent people! Also it doesn’t matter if they love or hate America, they are still bestowed with the same rights as all Americans. It’s the Constitutional law and supported by a Supreme Court ruling. It really doesn’t matter what is said, is said. It’s the law and the government wouldn’t really be legitimate if it didn’t follow it. Again if you have an issue against it you can try and take it up with the Supreme Court. Until that ruling is over ruled we have to follow it. No one is above it or below it.

We also have due process. Who determines what rights the detainees have? How many of them are there because they were indicted by a grand jury? Does outsourcing our prisons outsource human rights as well?

Our Constitution has bestowed due process rights on American citizens not enemy combatants.

Gimme a call when the Ragheads stop lopping the heads off of civilian non-combatants on video tape and I'll bring my fiddle to play a dirge for ya'.

That law is an obvious discrepancy. In addition it only applies to right to trial by jury. Until legislation is passed limiting war criminals from their other constitutional rights we have to respect them

That law is an obvious discrepancy. In addition it only applies to right to trial by jury. Until legislation is passed limiting war criminals from their other constitutional rights we have to respect them

Show me the law that GIVES NON-AMERICAN TERRORISTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Or rather show everybody else as I've already been online much too long.

It's a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law debate.

If the idea was to create a free, fair democracy, transparent government, fair judiciary... how does torturing suspects overseas fit in to the ideals which made America?

Elgesh']It's a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law debate.

If the idea was to create a free, fair democracy, transparent government, fair judiciary... how does torturing suspects overseas fit in to the ideals which made America?

You would have a point if we WERE torturing anybody!........argh I really have to go.

You would have a point if we WERE torturing anybody!........argh I really have to go.
Ah? OK, see you anon! :)

You would have a point if we WERE torturing anybody!........argh I really have to go.

Please do us all a favour. Ask someone to waterboard you a few times. Then you can tell us whether it is torture or not hmmm?

Its not torture when its not happening to me is a poor defense.

You would have a point if we WERE torturing anybody!........argh I really have to go.
Do some intensive research and then you will be better informed.

You can start here (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=us+torture+in+iraq&meta=).

Do some intensive research and then you will be better informed.

You can start here (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=us+torture+in+iraq&meta=).

Yeah, like Gitmo: The Only Gulag Where Prisoners Weigh More Leaving Than They Did Coming In.

And Google as a research tool? That does explain a lot.

Yeah, like Gitmo: The Only Gulag Where Prisoners Weigh More Leaving Than They Did Coming In.

And Google as a research tool? That does explain a lot.
It is just a suggested start for someone who is living in denial. Besides, I am a tad lazy tonight and don't feel like going back through all those threads where there is a plethora of documentation of torture and death at Abu Gharib and Gitmo.

It is just a suggested start for someone who is living in denial. Besides, I am a tad lazy tonight and don't feel like going back through all those threads where there is a plethora of documentation of torture and death at Abu Gharib and Gitmo.

BS. Nobody has ever died at Gitmo, and toture allegations have been extremely suspect.

BS. Nobody has ever died at Gitmo, and toture allegations have been extremely suspect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1439904,00.html
http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=5438&grp=30&cat=372

BS. Nobody has ever died at Gitmo, and toture allegations have been extremely suspect.
I guess you didn't here about that one huh?

Of course torture allegations are suspect. Everyone likes to accuse the US just for fun. :rolleyes:

http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/

And don't even try calling Slate a right-wing publication.


Mmmmm. Chicken Cordon Bleu, Turkey a la King...Maybe I could get myself thrown in there...

Mmmmm. Chicken Cordon Bleu, Turkey a la King...Maybe I could get myself thrown in there...

Hah. It wouldn't matter if they were getting foot massages. The thing shouldn't be there at all.

Hah. It wouldn't matter if they were getting foot massages. The thing shouldn't be there at all.

And why not?

http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/
Okay, I read yours, and I'll comment, but only if you read mine and comment.

And why not?

Because all people should have the right to due process.

Because all people should have the right to due process.

They all have lawyers, and all get hearings in front of military tribunals. They are getting due process. Though I suspect you mean extending rights found in the US Constitution to non-US citizens.

They all have lawyers, and all get hearings in front of military tribunals. They are getting due process. Though I suspect you mean extending rights found in the US Constitution to non-US citizens.

No. I mean they should face due process in their own countries. If the US has evidence, they should extradite them and try them under the US criminal justice system.

Gitmo? Give me a break. Public humiliation is NOT torture. And anyway all soldiers involved in "sodomizing" prisoners with brooms (the only thing that happened which could come close to being considered torture) were court marshalled. Untill torture is defined it is absurd to have legislation banning it.
"close to being considered torture"?
So If I strapped you down and repeatedly shoved a broom handle up your arse, you wouldn't call it torture? You'd only consider it perhaps close to torture?
Either you have a very warped sex life, or you're really doing your utmost to stay in a total state of denial.

BS. Nobody has ever died at Gitmo, and toture allegations have been extremely suspect.
That's sort of the entire point of torture--to keep people alive through excruciating pain.

They all have lawyers, and all get hearings in front of military tribunals. They are getting due process. Though I suspect you mean extending rights found in the US Constitution to non-US citizens.

They only recently got lawyers that could talk to them and the military tribunals are far from due process.

As to your second point, pray tell why someone that is not a US citizen does not deserve to be treated according to the fundamental principles of our country.

http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/

And don't even try calling Slate a right-wing publication.


Mmmmm. Chicken Cordon Bleu, Turkey a la King...Maybe I could get myself thrown in there...

As you are being facetious, there is no need to take your point seriously.

Starving people gain weight when fed. Big news. :rolleyes:

Mmmmm. Chicken Cordon Bleu, Turkey a la King...Maybe I could get myself thrown in there...

Please do. Then you can tell us personally how it was oh so "wonderful" there.

Show me the law that GIVES NON-AMERICAN TERRORISTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Or rather show everybody else as I've already been online much too long.

Rasul v. Bush (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-334), 542 US 466 (2004):

In a 6-to-3 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. Stevens, using a list of precedents stretching back to mid-17th Century English Common Law cases, found that the right to habeas corpus can be exercised in "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control." Because the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty remained with Cuba was irrelevant. Further, Stevens wrote that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status. The detainees were therefore free to bring suit challenging their detention as unconstitutional.

Rasul v. Bush (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-334), 542 US 466 (2004):

In a 6-to-3 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. Stevens, using a list of precedents stretching back to mid-17th Century English Common Law cases, found that the right to habeas corpus can be exercised in "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control." Because the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty remained with Cuba was irrelevant. Further, Stevens wrote that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status. The detainees were therefore free to bring suit challenging their detention as unconstitutional.
You know, you'd think they'd learn to wait to ask that kind of question until you're not on the board. :D

Rasul v. Bush (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-334), 542 US 466 (2004):

In a 6-to-3 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. Stevens, using a list of precedents stretching back to mid-17th Century English Common Law cases, found that the right to habeas corpus can be exercised in "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control." Because the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty remained with Cuba was irrelevant. Further, Stevens wrote that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status. The detainees were therefore free to bring suit challenging their detention as unconstitutional.


I suppose that's why they started being shipped overseas.

They only recently got lawyers that could talk to them and the military tribunals are far from due process.

As to your second point, pray tell why someone that is not a US citizen does not deserve to be treated according to the fundamental principles of our country.
You could also talk about how their lawyers aren't allowed to have confidential communications with their clients, how neither the lawyers are guaranteed the ability to see evidence against their clients, to right to confront their accusers, or even know precisely what they're being charged with. Due process? These tribunals don't even rise to the level of kangaroo courts.

You would have a point if we WERE torturing anybody!........argh I really have to go.

We have already been caught and admitted torture at Abu Ghraib prison.

If we are not torturing anybody else, why does the Red Cross say we are?

If we are not torturing anybody else, why does Amnesty International say we are?

If we are not torturing anybody else, why does Human Rights Watch say we are?

But most of all, if we are not torturing anybody else, why did the administration fight for so long against a ban on torture.

I suppose that's why they started being shipped overseas.

But so long as the United States government has complete control of the facility in question, it is considered by extension, a part of it, and thus the ruling would apply.

But so long as the United States government has complete control of the facility in question, it is considered by extension, a part of it, and thus the ruling would apply.

They don't though. That's the point of extraordinary rendition, isn't it.

But so long as the United States government has complete control of the facility in question, it is considered by extension, a part of it, and thus the ruling would apply.That assumes that someone who would want to bring an end to the torture knows something about it in the first place.

This legislation is completely ridiculous. We are not torturing anyone and this bill will threaten our ability to secure the safety of our citizens.

LOL.

If we are not torturing anyone, how does a ban on torture threaten our ability to secure the safety of our citizens?

You need to get your story straight.

They don't though. That's the point of extraordinary rendition, isn't it.

Not really. Extraordinary rendition doesn't mean the facility in question is run by someone else. It just means that its a snatch and grab by US intel to somewhere where they have control. More often than not, its a US CIA run facility, which is subject to the ruling.

But they'll probably ignore the ruling anyway.

Not really. Extraordinary rendition doesn't mean the facility in question is run by someone else. It just means that its a snatch and grab by US intel to somewhere where they have control. More often than not, its a US CIA run facility, which is subject to the ruling.

But they'll probably ignore the ruling anyway.

It may be run by the CIA, but its not under the sovereignty of the US. I don't, after all, imagine that they are doing this in the embassy. The laws of wherever it is would apply. Not US law.

It may be run by the CIA, but its not under the sovereignty of the US. I don't, after all, imagine that they are doing this in the embassy. The laws of wherever it is would apply. Not US law.

Then how come it applies to the base in Gitmo even though the sovereignity is that of Cuba? So long as the area is run specifically by the US government as an extension of that agency, that ruling would apply by the looks of it.

Hey everybody--before we get all congratulatory on this development, you might want to read this (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13401262.htm).

Congress will soon consider two amendments that threaten a descent into hypocrisy. Both have been tacked onto the defense authorization bill. A provision by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) is an unconditional bar on torture - a prospect President Bush finds so damaging he is threatening to veto the entire bill.

But he won't have to, thanks to a recent amendment by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.). This one bars Guantánamo detainees from going to federal court to enforce the rights that McCain would declare sacrosanct.

A shabby compromise is in the making. Bush removes his veto threat - as long as Graham's amendment remains in the bill - to transform McCain's principles into a hypocritical gesture: Listen up, world, we are against torture at Guantánamo - as long as nobody can complain about it.

To deflect critics, Graham has created an exception to allow Guantánamo inmates their day in court once they are finally convicted of a crime by a military tribunal. But this exception creates more perverse incentives. If a detainee has been victimized, the best way to cover it up is to hold him indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" and never send him before a military tribunal. That way, he will never get access to a federal court.

At present, only nine of the 500 Guantánamo detainees have been charged with crimes, and none have yet been convicted. How long will it take for Americans to learn what is really going on inside?

Graham's amendment poses even greater damage. The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case from a Guantánamo inmate who insists that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judicial hearing immediately. Graham's rider may require the court to drop this case in midstream.I thought something was fishy about this compromise the second I heard about it earlier today, simply because the Bush administration never backs down unless they've got an out. This is their out--the Graham amendment.

Then how come it applies to the base in Gitmo even though the sovereignity is that of Cuba? So long as the area is run specifically by the US government as an extension of that agency, that ruling would apply by the looks of it.

Because, as the case says, the United States "exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction" over GITMO. In the CIA facilities in eastern europe, that wouldn't be the case. Say for example that the CIA runs a facility in Poland, the territory it is on is still subject to the jurisdiction and control of the polish government, not the US. Which is very much unlike GITMO.

Anyway, you have to respect the legal process of foreign sovereigns on their soil. It's up to the government of wherever to decide what legal redress the detainees have in respect of their confinement.

I am not saying that the CIA personel might not be breaking some other laws of course, just that US courts don't have the jurisdiction to hear habeus corpus writs from people on held on soil subject to the control of foreign sovereigns.