It might not be acceptable but it is sometimes an effective way to get information that you otherwise could not get (vis a vis, 'secondary protocol'). I don't personally support physical torture because it is very easy to go over the line. Nor do I support anything similar to Abu Ghraib. You have to trick people into giving you the information you need. If the situation is too important and you can't get the information in any other way then and only then should sophisticated psychological (torture) measures be used. But this perversion of Abu Ghraib is ridiculous. How filthy and dishonorable!

Torture does not produce reliable infomation, it simply motivates prisoners to tell their captives what they think they want to hear. It is really only a good policy if you are into instant self gratification, ie, you want to hurt someone until they agree with you, and then claim your righteousness. . Oh yeah, one more thing, the reason we have historically refused to torture our prisoners, is so that our citizens will be treated humanely and not subjected to such attrocities if they are held captive. The next time some one tells you torture is ok; just ask them to say that to one of our brave boys. Better yet, watch them explain their torture postion to one of those soldiers mothers. Then stand back.

For me, torture is not morally acceptable, but also apparently, it doesn't work.
Morally wrong and doesn't work-a no brainer for me.
However, torture can be an effective release for sadistic natures. <_<

2 points from an email...

where is the line between torturing 'combatants' overseas and 'dissidents' at home?

... when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, more people died, more destruction was wrought, and the country thought it was in danger of actual invasion. Yet we did not feel torture was acceptable then...

what has changed?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not endorsing any kind of torture. It is not appropriate in 99% of different possible cases for using it. But there are those extreme cases where an individual has knowledge and you KNOW it and you HAVE to get it. Those are the cases that I'm referring to (the 'secondary protocol' ones).

You are mixing up the concept of interrogation with the use of torture. They are not the same.

I would suggest the best example of interrogation is when a mother sets a child down to find out if he/she actually DID know who done the dirty deed.

Torture is if that same mother started beating the bottom of the child's feet while asking the questions.

Biiiiig difference.....biiig difference in the outcome of the process too.

I'll tell you why torture is NEVER an option - the person doing the torture ALSO is effected, and THAT is passed on to every person they come into contact with after doing the deed by CHOICE or BY ORDER.

War is an easy environment to lapse into the lowest common denominator of humanity. That's why it is evil and a bane to humanity. It is INhuman.

I remember that experiment! People will generally conform to authority over chosing to defy the authority figure and take the ethical action. Frightening insight into human nature or perhaps it's a cultural trait. That was a Western study and I'm not so sure that other cultures would test out as bad.

I voted never. I've read that torturing does not produce results, so beside the obvious ethical reasons, why do it?

I think torture needs to be defined to get a fair reading on how people here stand.

Excellent points! I hadn't read your post before I posted mine. There is a big dif between interogation and torture but some consider many of the "interogation" techniques of the militarty to be torture.

Creating a monster is also an important consideration, as you pointed out.

Torture is not defined, so I'm not sure I know what you mean.

I believe Dershowitz' ticking bomb theory. However, I also think that it should be illegal so that the person who thinks he or she knows that there is a "ticking bomb" would have to be willing to risk their whole career over it. That would mean they would have to believe it to the point that they would be willing to take the fall for it. Like many of our soldiers who would jump on a grenade to save their units. This is like that too. I believe that if you HONESTLY had a ticking bomb, you would do anything to get that information to protect a city or a bunch of people. I think that interrogator would put their careers on the line for it. If it was later found to be untrue, they would be prosecuted, but if it was true, then they would not.

As I have said in other threads. They intend to bring back the Spanish Inquisition in the name of religous rights.

Oh yes, I forgot. They are not too far removed from the "Burn the witches at the stake, then they will confess and tell all."

My gut reaction is "Torture is never ok."

But then I start thinking like a Hollywood script-writer with an over-active imagination -

What if terrorists had a nuclear bomb planted in downtown Los Angeles - would I be ok with someone being tortured in order to locate that bomb? The truth, much as I hate to admit it, is "Yes, I would be ok with it."

What if terrorists had hidden Anthrax or Ebola in 10 schools somewhere in America, and we didn't know where - and a la Hollywood - they said that if any attempt was made to send kids home from school, they'd release the virus - would I be ok with someone being tortured in order to locate the virus? Same answer as above.

I've always considered myself to be a woman of principles - I was disgusted by what our troops did to those men in Abu Ghraib prison. I know what kind of martyrs we've created in the families of those men who were so heinously humiliated - the torture was bad enough, but in their culture, the added insult of having a woman involved in sexually humiliating them is visited upon every generation in their family. Instead of getting useful information, we've created hundreds of thousands of terrorists by what we did to those few men. There is no excuse, no justification, for what we did there.

But if saving the life of my children had to come at the cost of torturing information about a virus out of someone? I not only think I would give my permission - but I think I'd be willing to help.

Acknowledging that potential within myself saddens me.

good god, torture is NEVER acceptable. America's founding fathers sought to found the country on freedom and equality, freedom etc - we have tyranny in our present government!

THEY DID NOT!! And they tortured people too!

Are you a father?

Saphire, thanks for staying real!

Yes. The "Milgram Experiments" replicated on tv?

But, that's not the same thing. No one is saying that we should electric shock a bunch of people for no reason. What some say is if there were a nuclear bomb on a timer and YOU KNEW this guy in front of you knew where it was? What then?

I don't think ANYONE is saying this is standard operating procedure. I do not agree with that at all. Only if the "ticking bomb" scenario was in play.

I can empathize with what you are saying, but I disagree. A country has a right-a duty-and an obligation to its people to defend its sovereignty no matter what the cost. Whether it is the US, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, China, Cuba, etc. does not change that. The rest of the world is what supposedly determines whether what that country did was right or wrong. When the existence of a state is even somewhat in question anyone who should withhold the necessary force to defend it is just as guilty as the person who would use any means to uphold that state's sovereignty. In other words, in that case there would be no difference in each counterpart's degree of responsibility. So in the case in which other factors mitigate, the sovereignty of the state must reign supreme. Of course these are all the extreme cases that I am referring to. Torture outside of this category is of course unacceptable.

Well, Sapphire, you are being honest... but your thinking seems fuzzy... The people being tortured with excrement & sex perversions are not the people who know anything about WMD. Many of them were apparently 'sold' by warlords and at least some are innocent of anything.

There are two people -Saddam Hussein and A.Q. Khan- who do know about terrorist WMDs. Both are being treated with exceptional kindness. Khan in particular may turn out to be the greatest mass murder in all history, if your Hollywood scenario comes true. Yet Bush didn't even demand Pakistan turn him over...

Also missing from the discussion is that there are proven methods of interogation that work quickly and reliably- sensory deprivation being one. It at least doesn't involve sadism...

You said torture 'somebody' - that is exactly what is happening, torturing one person for the deeds of another. Any old somebody... are you willing to do that? Even the KGB didn't find that necessary

I'm not saying we should treat these people with kid gloves, but there is a line where our own cause is lost if we become the terrorists, and the end of this WOT moves imponderably into the future.

Somebody said we all die, it is not how you die that is important, it is how you live... it is how we live and act that will determine if we ultimately win or lose this struggle, which has now become one for the 'hearts and minds' of the whole planet.

Yeah, but Thom, you didn't define torture as that which occured at Abu Ghraib. So, that's kind of unfair. I too, condemn that. If you want to know the answer to a question, then put the qualifiers in otherwise no one knows what you mean.

In fact, you did qualify it: "unfortunately acceptable in certain urgent cases"

Now, how does that include Abu Graib?

Heart- sometimes it is hard to tell you from the badguys, even your avatar is violent. I can't hardly believe even you said that.

Sorry you don't like my avatar. Do you like cyberlina's. Don't you consider "Trinity" from the Matrix violent....or was she just on the side you supported and therefore ok? People running around here with Nazi signs, against Bush, so that's ok, because they're on YOUR side. Yes, I like the people who are on my side too. I'm on your side and I have "certificates" to prove it, polls to prove it, and everything test I take makes me a Liberal. It's not such a bad thing to have some good soldiers on your side. If every Democrat disarms then I fear even more for us all.

However, if you know history, can you tell me that they did not hang Royalists and torture them during the Revolutionary war? They did. Nor did they found this country with any ideas of what we would see as equality, yeah, equal among the elite, property owners MEN, but no one else was included and you can't deny that. What I am saying is that we hold too tightly to our myths.

I'm also saying that when you have a child, you understand what Sapphire said, in a way that no one ever can, unless maybe you think about your mother, or wife, being buried alive someplace and you have the person that knows where she is....then maybe you understand. That's what I mean, not anything like random, or regularized torture, and you would see that in my answer to the question.

Thom -

I thought my post was very clear that I was only referring to an individual who could actually provide the information necessary to stop the bomb from going off or the virus from being released.

My Uncle was a POW during the Vietnam war - I witnessed first-hand as a child what kind of destruction and life-long pain it causes in an individual. I saw how an image on the TV screen could set him off into screaming, crying fits. I saw how certain sounds - like a faucet dripping onto an aluminum pan - would send him scurrying for the nearest corner where he would curl in a fetal position for hours, sobbing and begging. And I remember that it drove him to suicide - and what kind of effect that had on his wife, his family, his friends.

But you know what? I would still be willing to inflict that kind of pain on someone else to save the lives of millions in the scenarios I presented in my first post - and before you jump to more conclusions about me or my position, I'll spell it out for you - ONLY in a situation where I knew that the individual actually possessed the knowledge needed to stop that kind of horror from happening.

I'm not proud of feeling this way - I'd Love to be able to say I'm incapable of harming another human being. But in a situation like I presented above - I recognize within myself the capacity to harm someone, especially to protect my children. I would die for my children - and yes, I would even torture or kill to protect them. It is certainly not the best aspect of my character - perhaps it is even a flaw - but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't there.

I don't believe they stripped people, played with their sex organs, made them lie in excrement, etc. And I believe my child's life has the same priceless value as the child of a Palestinian or Iraqi or an Afghani...

What I find similar in your posts to our darker history is the zealot calls for the extermination of the Native American; you've come very close to saying 'the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian' many times in your previous posts...

One thing I'm sure of, you aren't on my side... and you will never make peace from the barrel of your gun, only more deaths.

But what about the situation in which you could not tell whether the person possessed that information or not? I'd personally err on the side of defending the country. You can never know for sure. We have to be right 100%; they only have to be right once. Not that I'm a neocon but those statements are still nonetheless true. Therefore, I think widespread torture is what is wrong because in advance you KNOW it is wrong. The other kinds of torture (on a single person) you might not know whether you should have done it until it was too late. So that is the exception that I also believe in. Just in the more conservative interpretation of it.

Thom: That's fine if you don't think I'm on your side, but logically, could you please tell me where you described all of that in your question?

What you asked all of us is whether there was EVER an instance where we would sanction 'do what is urgently needed". If you ask it, then I assume you thought there would be some answers different from yours. Why you have to attack MY answer has to do with Kerry/Edwards fights that you have not gotten over. I have said no such thing and you know that I haven't said that. I do not believe that every other child is as important as my child...because I'm human I will grab for my child before I will grab someone elses. That's in a pinch, and as far as I could tell that's what you were talking about.

If you define people who are on your side as only those that agree with you on every issue, then I'm sure you will find very few who fit that. I can't stop that narrow definition you have, but I can tell you that I am on the side of the Democrats in this country and you can't disown me just because you think I don't fit your personal description of a Dem, otherwise you just lost a good 30% of your Party.

There is no need to attack ME, without backing up your statements and doing so in a proper forum subcategory. If you wish to discuss my views on Israel, then we can take that there. If you want to discuss my views of what the Taliban did to women, then we can discuss that too. But where were YOU while they suffered? Where were YOU when the Kurds were being gassed and genocide was committed against them? Because I was sending aid packages through backchannels and trying to help those MUSLIM children across the planet, but I guess you would rather NOT lose any of our OWN sons and daughters for some Afghan girl huh?

I have someone very close to me; we went to an Air Show... She was fine until a WWII fighter flew over. Then she suddenly collapsed in hysterics and I had to carry her away.

She was born in a Japanese prison camp, she survived by eating grasshoppers and such. Her mother was also there, and I've heard a lot about what happened, and I see the dead places in their souls, and what that does to their lives, and to a small extent to mine- and it just keeps reverberating.

So there you are in that room, but you are leaving something important out... do you try the sodium pentathol first, or do you attach wires to their privates? That is what this issue is about...

Civility...what happened to it?

Although I do have to commend your retort, heart. One does not have to agree with you personally to agree with what you are saying.

I have to say, that is by far THE MOST common-sense argument I've ever heard against the use of torture against terrorists. My gosh, the "common sense" is just overflowing today at CGCS.

I was watching Capital Gang today, and Kate O'Beirne (the righty sourpuss) brushed off the left's arguments (I think she actually did wave her hand for the "brushoff") by saying that torture is a necessary evil you have to use to get information from those kinds of people.

But your argument just blows that out of the water - if someone is prepared to die for their cause, how can we expect torture to break them?

Nor, should "I" personally be singled out for answering the same way you or Sapphire did.

And Thom, you do know that many Native American tribes practiced torture don't you? This is another myth that we cling to these days, that the Native Americans NEVER did anything bad, and they were so peaceful. They most certainly were NOT peaceful, either to the White man or to each other.

The situation of enslaved Indians varied among the tribes. In many cases, enslaved captives were adopted into the tribes to replace warriors killed during a raid. Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle. Some Indians cut off one foot of their captives to keep them from running away

Sometimes this grief related torture lasted for days, and body parts were cut off one by one.

I don't care about answering an honest question, but I really resent having historical revisionism inserted into the debate.

Thom, could you please point me to the post where I said torture should be used as a first step?

It's funny - maybe I'm the only one who assumes my fellow posters are reasonable, thinking human beings who have nothing but the best intentions. That's how I tend to read posts - I don't go looking for what they "didn't" say, and then trying to call them out for not saying it. I mean, gee Thom, you didn't say anywhere that you're not a child molester - so should I assume that since you didn't say it, that you are one? That would be quite the ridiculous leap of logic, wouldn't it?

Now maybe I'm naive, but I would assume that any rational, thinking human being would use every other humane method possible to find out the location of a bomb or virus FIRST. And I'm naive enough to assume that it goes without saying.

Let me know if you need me to spell it out to you, step by step, specific scenarios in which I am capable of torturing someone to gain information and exactly how I'd go about it. And I say "scenarios in which I am capable" because I am not going to condone this type of action if I am unwilling to carry it out myself.

I am not proud of that part of myself - but I sit here at my desk looking at a picture of my children and absolutely recognize the "mother bear syndrome" within myself that would literally kill to save them. Would I try other means first? Absolutely without question. But could I eventually attach a lead wire to someone's genitals in order to find that bomb or that virus - yes I could.

There are fates worse than death - those poor men at Abu Gharib prison can tell you all about it. Every one of them would have rather died than gone through the humiliation and horror they faced - you see, what our troops did to them was worse than killing them - it was, in their beliefs, condemning them to an eternity of separation from Allah. Those poor men will live the rest of their lives BELIEVING that Allah will never welcome them home - that nothing they do can atone for the dishonor they've been exposed to. Given the chance, they'll try and atone - through terroism and martyrdom - as will their families. And if I haven't been clear enough for you, Thom, then let me spell it out - There was no need and there is NO excuse for what was done to those men. None. Not even the tiniest bit.

Even in the scenarios I presented before - you do not destroy someone's faith in their God. For one, it doesn't work - you have now created a person who has NOTHING to lose. For another, it is the ultimate horror to visit upon another. The men and women who did that to those men at Abu Gharib are the ultimate psychopaths as far as I'm concerned - they are a million times worse than the most extremist terrorist you can find. They knew exactly what kind of destruction they were visiting upon those men - and they did it anyway. They didn't do it because of their spiritual beliefs - they did it because they are ammoral. If there is such a thing as a human being without a Soul - it's those soldiers.

Is that clear enough for you, Thom - or do you need a dissertation on every scenario, every conceivable issue, every possible situation? Let me know, huh?

Of course it is similar: they find people willing to torture other......and you will always find sadistic people if you look for it! important is the one who give the order and the other follow the order!
The ticking bomb theory have one problem: this kind of people are fanatic and ready to die anyway..why should they speak under tortur? not to mention that in their camps, they learned how to suffer pain , without weaken. This is well known

Did we need to use torture as a tool to achieve victory in WWl, WWll, Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, the Cold War, no we learned the lessons a long time ago, it is regressive to think anything worthwhile can be derived as a result of torture. The use of torture will become a great tool for all anti-American activities world wide.

May I point out that the torture we are talking about was used as the first softening-up step? As an official policy right from the White House?

You had a good idea with the Hollywood scenarios, that could simplify matters. But let's turn it around a little? Here's the scenario:

You are Timothy McVeigh's wife. A SWAT team shows up in the middle of the night. They take you and your child into custody. They have discovered that he has a truck full of explosives to be set off tomorrow, but they don't know where. He has told you nothing, so you can't be cooperative.

They think you know, and they have very little time.

Now what rules of interrogation would you like to see?

This was my initial answer, which Thom jumped down my throat over. I don't see how, or why, but that was his reaction.

If I KNEW I had the person who had buried my mother alive and she would run out of oxygen, I would starte with the kneecaps! Death would NOT be an option. Yet, I would want that to be illegal! So, if I did that I better make DAMN SURE this was the PERSON. So SURE, that I would be willing to lose my freedom and career over it.

Heart- this was your initial answer- claiming the Founding Fathers tortured the Loyalists. This is what I objected to.

Thom: Look at the time stamp. It was NOT my initial answer. YES, it's TRUE, the Revolutionary war was not pretty and Loyalists DID report torture. What is it you disagree with? That they did or did not torture and hang innocent British loyalists? That they created a country with liberty and freedom? That was what I was pointing to. This myth that we have that our country was founded on these myths. Native Americans tortured us, and each other. We did it too. All I'm asking is for the truth to be told. I think Sapphire was really trying to come to terms with the fact that she is human and I commended her honesty and I don't see anything wrong with that honesty. The question asked was EVER...meaning...I presume...under ANY possible circumstances.

QUOTE(heart @ Jan 8 2005, 08:46 PM)
Torture is not defined, so I'm not sure I know what you mean.

I believe Dershowitz' ticking bomb theory. However, I also think that it should be illegal

Then LATER:

QUOTE(heart @ Jan 8 2005, 11:57 PM)
THEY DID NOT!! And they tortured people too!

Ron Blumer who wrote "Liberty: The American Revolution from battlefield diaries and in conjuction with MIT historians for PBS talks about torture a bit in the documentary:

"The American Revolution was also a civil war, dividing colonists into loyalists and rebel factions. In the South, it was especially brutal with the loyalist Scotch Irish immigrants battling the aristocratic patriots, says Blumer. People tortured each other; one pregnant woman was skewered with bayonets."

C'mon Thom. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you did go off on a tirade without really knowing if I knew what I was talking about or not. I do. I live with a historian, and it rubs off. It's not too hard to just say you jumped the gun a bit you know?


"One of the favourite pastimes of the mob was to tar and feather "obnoxious Tories." The tar was usually heated before the victim was stripped naked. The hissing tar was poured over the victim's head, shoulder, chest and back and feathers were placed over the pine tar. The victim was then paraded about the streets in a cart for all the townspeople to see what happens to supporters of the British government.

Another form of torture inflicted on some of the Tories was to force them to ride the rail. This involved placing the "unhappy victim" upon sharp rails with one leg on each side; each rail was carried upon the shoulders of two tall men, with a man on each side to keep the poor wretch straight and fixed in his seat.

Seth Seeley, a Connecticut farmer, who later fled to New Brunswick was brought before a local committee in 1776 and, as punishment for signing a declaration to support the king's laws was put on a rail carried on men's shoulders through the streets, put into stocks and besmeared with eggs and was robbed of money for the entertainment of the Company.(6)

Some of the other acts of extreme cruelty used on the Tories by the Patriots were hoisting enemies of liberty up a liberty pole with a dead animal on the pole; forcing a Tory to ride an unsaddled horse with his face to the tail of the horse and his coat turned inside out; sitting Tories on lumps of coal; whipping, cropping ears, placing the enemy in the pillory or stockade. The mob could at times be moved by extremely reactionary impulses and cruel acts.

Some of the revolutionary leaders encouraged the sadistics acts of the mobs. In December 1776 the Provincial Congress of New York went so far as to order the Committee of Public Safety to purchase all the pitch and tar necessary for the public's use and safety.

General George Washington seems to have approved mob persecution of the Tories. In 1776 General Israel Putnam, one of Washington's generals, met a procession of the Sons of Liberty parading a number of Tories on rails up and down the streets of New York and he attempted to halt this inhuman proceeding. On hearing this, Washington reprimanded General Putnam, stating that "to discourage such proceedings was to injure the cause of liberty in which they were engaged, and that nobody would attempt it but an enemy of his country."

As the revolution progressed, semi-official organizations began to harass the Tories. The Continental Congress or Provincial Congress laid down the general policy to be observed in the treatment of Tories, and local committees carried it out in detail. Early in 1776 the Continental Congress, which at the time had no basis in law, recommended that Tories be disarmed; it was the committee which then enforced the recommendation. Tories were arrested, tried, exiled to other districts and, in some cases, imprisoned. A few Tories, particularly in the southern states, were hung.

The political situation changed in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4 July 1776. It recounted the grievances of the colonies against the British Crown and declared the colonies to be free and independent states. Loyalism to the British Crown became the equivalent of treason to the state. Penalties for treason began to be laid against the Tories.

The Declaration of Independence was followed by the Test Laws which required all colonists to swear allegiance to the state in which they lived. A record was kept of those who took the oath and they were issued a certificate for safety from arrest. Failure to take the oath meant possible imprisonment, confiscation of property, banishment and even death.

The Test oath was to enforce a declaration of principle from those who were indifferent to or were secret enemies of the Revolution, state legislators enacted "test" laws. (sic) The oath demanded by these laws varied in different colonies that adopted them, but in general they prescribed loyalty to the patriot cause, disloyalty to the British government, and promise not to aid and abet the enemy. In the Test Acts passed before the Declaration of Independence "the oath of abjuration and allegiance was omitted."(7)

The Tory who refused to take the oath of allegiance became an outlaw. He did not even have the right of a foreigner in the courts of law. If his neighbours owned him money, he had no legal redress. No relative or friend could leave an orphan child to his guardianship. He could not be the administrator or executor of a person's estate. If he was a lawyer, doctor or someone with some other profession, he was often denied the right to practice his profession.

http://www.threerivershms.com/loyalistspersecution.htm

Gee Thom - I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I in no way approve of, or condone, what was done to those men. I'm sorry - did I need to be more clear or do you just choose to assign the worst possible interpretation upon everything I say? Let me make a recommendation - in the future, before you decide to interpret my words, ask me for clarification - because it is becoming very clear that you are either not reading anything I write, or simply incapable of believing that anyone is as horrified by the actions our government has taken as you are.



Assuming that I am stupid enough to be married to someone and have absolutely no idea that they are planning to bomb a target - and assuming that I'm gullible enough to not notice strange behaviors, odd purchases and definite terrorist ideals and leanings -

I would first and foremost offer to submit to a lie detector test and sodium penathol right up front. I would offer every bit of information I possibly could in order to facilitate their investigation. I would not keep saying, "I don't know anything. Leave me alone." I would instead tell every little thing I could think of which might help them. Unlike you, I give our law enforcement some credit - I do think most of them can tell the difference between someone who is witholding and someone who is not.

As for what rules of interrogation I would like to see?

I don't know, Thom - I'd Love to be able to say that I'm willing to submit myself to any tactics they feel they need to use - but I'm human like everyone else, and certainly not interested in being tortured, or in having my child tortured in order to get information out of me. I don't think it is ever acceptable to torture or harm a child to get information out of an adult - even in the scenarios I presented.

As I said before - my gut instinct is to say that torture of anyone is never acceptable - but I am honest enough to admit that I would do it myself in scenarios like I presented above.

I recognize that I am completely hypocritical in this as well, since I certainly wouldn't want to be subjected to torture anymore than anyone else would. But you know what? I also avoid putting myself in a position to be in that situation in the first place. And quite frankly - the minute you decide to involve yourself in terrorist activities - you have made the choice to be subjected to these types of interrogation means. We don't get to pretend that there are no consequences for our actions - I'm big on personal responsibility.

That's an aspect of this I have thought about - I believe that at some point in my life, this Country will be faced with a Civil War. I believe that at some point, we will have to fight to take back our Nation from it's corrupt government. And I know full well that when that time comes, those of us trying to take back our Country will be branded as terrorists and treated as such. That is a consequence I am willing to pay, just as it was a consequence I was willing to pay the day I enlisted in the Navy. The possibility of becoming a POW is there for every member of the armed services - I knew the day I enlisted that it could one day be me. I willingly subjected myself to that potential consequence then, and I would do it again.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Thom must have been having a real bad day. I don't know Sapphire, I think we really clarified the issue. What more can we do?

White House Fought New Curbs on Interrogations, Officials Say
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: January 13, 2005 NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, Congressional officials say.

The defeat of the proposal affects one of the most obscure arenas of the war on terrorism, involving the Central Intelligence Agency's secret detention and interrogation of top terror leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and about three dozen other senior members of Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.

But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill after the White House expressed opposition.

In a letter to members of Congress, sent in October and made available by the White House on Wednesday in response to inquiries, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds that it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy." .......


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13intel.html

(you have to register with the NYT.)

This is outrageous and we're debating about who Abu Grhab already made in easier for other countries to torture Americans captured b/c of the new precident. This is legal manuevering with sick consequences in our military future!

Bush Admin. Sucks!

Actually,
There is a reason that certain procedures should be closed doors. It is not good for terrorists to know exactly the procedures or what is possible.
The uncertainty factor is what drives people to crack and tell secrets. However the other factor to consider, would be that intelligence turns stale by the hour. Say you capture someone, the organization they are in, would be flexible enough to re-make plans. So whatever the guy had is mostly useless within a few weeks.(not all, but most)

How disappointing, I was hoping there'd be amusing pictures of a cabinet meeting!

I vehemently oppose torture or "extreme interrogation methods" by the United States government of anyone for any reason. The United States of America does not do that! The United States miltary does not do that!

When the Bush administration pushes these tactics, they are surrendering to our enemiese. We are a nation founded on principles so when we violate those principles, then we have lost our country and our enemies have won.

I also do not buy the argument that non-citizens are not entitled to the full protection of our Constitution. My reasoning is that we beleive as a people that our basic fundamental rights are inherent and not gratned to us by government. It is not the fact that I am a citizen of the U.S. that entitles me to be treated as a human being. That is my natural right and it is the natural right of any human anywhere in the world.

I read somewhere that the reason for not pushing Bush on the dreadful torture in Iraq was so that Democratics would not appear weak (on terrorism!). Looks like Bush and co have really got our people by the throat?

How did Kerry vote on this?

I bet he voted with honor - reflecting on the Vietnam tragedies - Hanoi Hilton - I Wonder?


NOT!


Kerry voted Yeah - just to be silenced in the end.


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (S. 2845 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 216 Vote Date: December 8, 2004, 03:13 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 2845 (National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 )
Measure Title: A bill to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 89
NAYs 2
Not Voting 9


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Not Voting
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Hollings (D-SC), Not Voting
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Not Voting
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

I believe this is the final version of the bill that was voted on after several revisions.

The bloggers, Blogger Gate, and millions of concerned American citizens are the real behind the door people.