With the Democratic leadership continuing to block any impeachment effort or any serious effort to hold officials liable for the U.S. torture program, Congress was free to hold another bizarre hearing today to calmly discussed our use of torture. Even though current Attorney General continues to evade the question, former Attorney General acknowledged and defended water boarding.
This is not the first hearing where the value of our use of torture was addressed as a routine matter of discussion, click here. Indeed, we have now gotten to the point where we openly compare our acts of torture with those of other nations, click here.
Thus, it was no surprise to see members bantering about on the use of a war crime today like it was some chicken subsidy going to mark up.
For his part, Ashcroft fulfilled his stereotype as more general and attorney. When asked if he felt that other nations could legitimately waterboard our own soldiers when captured, Ashcroft did not contest that possibility. Instead, he gave a non-answer: “Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces,.” Some could easily read that response as affirming that it would be permissible to waterboard our own soldiers when captured.
With the International Red Cross informing the Administration that high officials could be tried for war crimes over our torture program, here, many of us are left with this out-of-body sensation in watching these hearings unfold. Just yesterday, Speaker Pelosi reaffirmed that (no matter how strong the evidence might be that President Bush committed crimes, including war crimes, in office) she would not allow impeachment proceedings to begin. So, instead, we just sit around and calmly discuss war crimes like some interesting factoids and conversation points.
For the full story, click here.
Thank you for continuing to speak out on these subjects. I usually just pound my head against the wall.
Ashcroft is utterly and completely insane. He needs to be thoroughly waterboarded.
How loudly do you think this and all neo-cons would scream torture if water boarding was done to them or their families? It boggles my mind that a former attorney general could say such nonsense or support such atrocious behavior..
Let’s waterboard John Ashcroft to get info on Bush and Cheney and see how quickly he cries!
“We don’t torture.” __GB
Ashcroft needs to be waterboarded. Then we’ll see if his opinion of it changes.
Include Bush and Cheney in the waterboarding line. In fact, just do all three of them at the same time. These people are criminals, plain and simple. I hope they are someday made to pay.
“Let the eagle fly….” Wonder what kind of song he’ll sing at the war crimes trial? Are they all utterly and hopelessly corrupt, or just scared little men desperately covering their behinds? I think the latter is the best explanation, and not just because it exposes the hypocrisies of these “giants”, but merely because it is usually the case.
What’s insane is the complete loss of any patriotism and common sense these days. Sure George Bush was horrible in the White House, but are you really justifying the fact that we should be nice to known terrorists? These men have murdered innocent Americans. It’s come to the point where we care more about the terrorist’s “feelings” then our own safety. Wake up people, it’s a global war on terror and the information extracted from these goons could save thousands of lives. These terrorists are trained extensively to resist torture so I’m pretty sure being nice and asking them politely to hand out information is out of the question. It’s torture, so what, it’s been used for thousands of years. so start worrying more about your frickin country, that has provided so much for you, and less about a small boo-boo a terrorist gets. You are the people that probably feel bad for the evil 16-year old that blew up an American soldier as well.
Mespo,
I don’t see why that needs to be an either\or situation.
“Just yesterday, Speaker Pelosi reaffirmed that (no matter how strong the evidence might be that President Bush committed crimes, including war crimes, in office) she would not allow impeachment proceedings to begin.”
****************
Please mark July 16, 2008, as the day our generation’s moral corruption was complete, and our adherence to the Rule of Law ended. Let’s hope for better from the next.
This really is surreal. Ashcroft supposedly opposed some of this shit in private meetings with “the (un)pricipals”. Evidence of torture being both designed and approved by dick and george increases each day.
Ascroft considers himself a highly moral person (HMP). An ethical person who knew something was wrong, had genuinely tried privately to fix it with no real success; would speak out publically, screaming from the rooftops. The eagle isn’t soaring. It’s sitting in a nest full of its own excrement.
As to Congress. I find their behavior appalling. They are nattering nabobs–period! I’m certain taking on the dick and his george would be terrifying. It could get very ugly. But courageous people do things because they should do them. I am also guessing that there are Congresspeople with connections to those who know where many of this administration’s bodies are buried (besides the ones in Arlington and overseas). This would be a good time to put that info to work.
Miles: With that kind of reasoning you could justify just about any technique for torture. If we, as Americans, are not seen as a moral nation then there is no reason for us to ever expect any surrender or peaceful end to any conceivable war in which we are victorious. Why would any other nation agree to lay down their arms if they know that they may be tortured for information? If warring nations are not willing to surrender or agree to a peaceful end (accepting that a longer duration of combat implies more casualties) then this would imply that more American soldiers would die too. Think about the consequences.
Miles:
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear your comments were written in German just substituting Jews, or Poles, or whatever group the Nazi’s were fighting at the time. You want to be a moral relativist on the topic of torture go ahead — just realize the company you keep. By the way, being “nice” to prisoners of war is precisely the approach our interrogators took in interviewing and living with Nazi and Japanese WW2 soldiers. It was imminently successful, your macho assumptions not withstanding. And I suspect that the Bushido Code of the Japanese was every bit as tough as you incorrectly assume these terrorist’s to be.
Some of the questions and testimony centered on “Did it work, or not?” (could we gain valuable information from this?). I submit that, if you get to the question of whether it works or not - you have lost your moral bearing. If the satisfactory answer to justify waterboarding is “it works” - then the next question, when it doesn’t work,is “what does work?” And your justification for “Burning at the stake” or any other brutality, is provided.
Cruelty is wrong because we’re better than that.
I think that Pelosi and the Democratic leaders need to be impeached, first, as legal obstructionists.
Miles,
If patriotism means a lack of empathy you can count me out.
I’m going to do something most people here won’t do (and I probably shouldn’t either), I’m going to assume you’re willing to listen to a reasonable argument. I’m even going to assume that everything you say is true.
First, you say we care more about the terrorists feelings then our country. This is wrong, we care more about the rule of law of the country than we care about revenge. Or you could say we care more about protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty. We work from the assumption that not everyone that’s suspected of something is guilty.
As for the rest it’s just lazy thinking. You appeal to the antiquity of torture. Magic has been used to cure illness for longer than modern medicines, do you go to a doctor or a shaman? You say the terrorists have been trained to resist being tortured then say that we should therefore torture them. Do you also suggest a treatment of penicillin for an infection that’s penicillin resistant?
I feel for anyone who dies (or rather their family). Regardless of if they’re a youth who’s been fed a doctrine of hatred his whole life or if they’re an American Soldier who put his life on the line to do what he has been told is necessary to protect his country.
What I mean is in the sense of waterboarding. When dealing with the terrorists who planned the attacks on 9/11 and other terror schemes, I am all for sleep deprivation, loud music, and waterboarding. All of which most of you consider “torture”. When the plotter of 9/11 endured 33 seconds of waterboarding, and then gave valuable information, I think you have to think of the lives cost. I think in a terror war, with jihadists cutting heads off and using real torture techniques, you need to take a step back and realize what we are dealing with. I’m not sure the terrorists care if we are moral, and I’m not sure I care if other countries think we are moral when in fact I think this is the right thing to do. If I’m choosing either to be moral or to save an American life, you can surely bet I’m saving my countryman. Also, the media plays this up so much. Don’t you think terrorists are over there laughing? Saying, ha, if we make them think they are torturing us, the media is gonna catch wind and expose this. If Osama is caught, would you care if he was sleep deprived, waterboarded, and tortured inhumanely? Be honest because I’m sure most of you moral people wouldn’t give a damn if he was.
Gyges:
Bravo.
Art,
I agree with what you said. I wonder if Congresspeople can be legally charged with obstruction of justice.
Jill
Miles:
You can fight the beast, but you need not become the beast. Were we torturers like the Japanese or the Nazi’s to gain information, or did we fight the ethical and legal way? It’s a false choice perpetrated by the Neanderthals running this show. When it’s all said and done you have to live with your actions. If a nation loses its moral compass in the battle to survive, it has already lost.
Miles,
I’m beginning to think you pull “information” out of a part of your anatomy most of us use to get rid of waste. Either that or you have way to big of a mouth for the security clearance you’ve been given.
Setting aside questions of how you were privy to what I assume would b e state secrets: If someone involved in the Sept. 11 tragedy was water boarded and revealed information how did it save lives? I’m assuming that since I didn’t hear about any part of the plan that was thwarted by anyone not aboard an airplane that this information was revealed after the fact. I repeat how did information about something that had ALREADY HAPPENED save lives?
Pose a question to yourself. If the terrorists once
again were striking inside the US and one was caught
during the attack. Would you waterboard this individual
to try and extract information from him on the ongoing
attack or would you throw him in a jail cell and let him sit
while these terrorists continued there murderous ways?
Would you waterboard him to find out if there were future
attacks planned? What if it was you or one of your family
members in the way of this potential attack? Would you
then think differently about waterboarding? These terrorists
will stop at nothing to torture and murder us. What is the difference? We’re civilized? We’ll all be dead…
Miles,
Perhaps you know that the torture techniques approved by cheney and addington came from wwII enemy manuals on how to obtain false confessions from american prisoners? We now have actual, fact based evidence that these same techniques, applied to our prisoners had the exact same result–a whole lot of false information. If you want to protect America false confessions won’t help. The supposed usefulness of torture is a lie. I believe what Al, Mespo and others have said is more germain. If we give up being a nation of laws, of justice then we don’t need terrorists to destroy who we are, we just did that ourselves.
I’m staring to think you don’t read much. It wasn’t the 9/11 plotter but it led to him.
The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding. After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
Mohammad, who is known as KSM, was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA.
In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.
“We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,” Bush said. “And no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew.”
The president said, “I think it’s very important for the American people to understand who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks.”
THANK YOU SOL!! A LOGICAL PERSON!
Miles,
I am saddened by your lack of knowledge of the historical facts surrounding torture. We prosecuted Japanese officials for waterboarding after WWII. We(The U.S.) prosecuted some of our own soldiers during the Vietnam era for waterboarding. Your statements assume two big myths: 1. Torture actually produces good information. If that was true why is the FBI and the U.S. Military against it. Before McCain was running for President, he stated that torture does not produce good information. So, even if you can get over the legal probelm, domestically and internationally, you don’t get good information. 2. The biggest myth is that it is ok to torture because we are dealing with bad guys here. Well, these bad guys are no badder than the Nazi’s or the Japanese torturers and we were not allowed to torture them and were better than them for not torturing. Also, tell me who the right guys are to torture. I always here we need to torture a specific inddividual who may have information about an attack on the U.S.. Unless they are torturing every prisoner, and they may be doing that, how do they know who has the “big information”?
Finally, your question about Osama being caught is a great one. What this illegal administration has us doing is debating whether we should torture a bad guy. You and the Bush felons have forgotten one big thing, It is Illegal and has been for years. It is illegal now. You are advocating and promoting someone to commit a felony and an international war crime. Why don’t you provide your real name so we can come looking for you when the grownups take over in January and we can add your name to the enablers that allowed our country, my country to be mentioned in the same discussion as the Nazi’s in the concentration camps and the Soviet Union in its Gulags. I stand with Gyges when he says having empathy is part of being a patriotic American.
One final question for you Miles. WWJT? I have asked it before. Who Would Jesus Torture?
By being nice to the Japanese during world war II you mean putting thousands of their people in camps in the West? Correct?
Sol,
You’re arguing an old point. Torture doesn’t get good information, just confessions. That’s why the legal system doesn’t allow confessions given under duress. The duress is usually much milder then torture and yet the law views it as possible for it to make people to confess to things they didn’t do. How is a false confession going to help anyone?
The amazing thing, is that people watch 24, and assume that our intelligence services always have the same level of confidence and absolute assurance that the information they get is reliable as the data gotten on 24.
The REAL WORLD doesn’t work that way.
sol - If we caught someone, and had sufficient reason, to believe our torture could cough up reliable information, sufficient to STOP a terrorist attack that is immenent, then YES, I say torture. If we’ve captured someone, and we’re trying to get general information out of him, hideouts, names, numbers etc. then NO, I am not for torture.
The big problem is that many Americans seem to think that the activities on 24 are realistic, and the levels of confidence we have are far greater than they actually are.
Would you have supported torture based on our intelligence information regarding Iraq’s nuclear capabilities in 2002/3? I’m betting the guys in our intelligence service would have, after all we went to WAR over totally flawed intel that we had months to vet.
America should always be known for taking the high road. After all, it’s AMERICA. If we sink to the level of, “Well they behead us, so anything we do to them is ok,” we are no longer taking the high road, but will simply sink to the depths of THEIR immorality, abandoning ours along the way.
America is too good a country to have it’s morals dashed by fools.
Sol,
While I was responding to MIles, you wrote that you approve of this illegal act. No matter what George W. Bush tells you and Miles, it is illegal. The “legal opinions” that Bush is clamoring about is better called an excuse. You don’t get out of jail by saying your attorney said it was ok! Your president has committed a domestic crime and a war crime. Are you in favor of your president committing war crimes? You must because you believe every lie that he tells you. He claims that waterboarding got us info that allowed us to catch Khalid Shiek Mohammed. And why should you believe a man who has lied us into an illegal war? Why should you think that this president who is AWOL from his Air National Guard unit is a patriot? And one more time, it is a crime no matter what information may or may not have been obtained. And lets not forget that this was the President who was asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11 and did nothing to prevent it. As I mentioned to Miles, lets have your full name so the war crimes tribunal can ask you a few questions.
Miles:
Ah, those were Americans we put into those camps, and while their rights were violated they were not tortured. We apologized and paid reparations there. Do you really not see the difference or are you intentionally obtuse.
sol:
“What is the difference? We’re civilized?”
*********************
You’ve just answered your own question.
Miles,
I don’t think you read what YOU said luckily for me, it’s right up there for all to see it reads “When the plotter of 9/11 endured 33 seconds of waterboarding, and then gave valuable information, I think you have to think of the lives cost.” That is not the same as saying that water boarding led to the capture of a 9/11 plotter.
I know it’s hard to believe, but I actually DO read through and THINK about what people who disagree with me say. Then I think about my reply. Then I go through and re-read the person’s comments and my own. I do that last just to make sure I got things right.
I admit the remark about where you get your info wasn’t in the spirit of reasonable debate, but you don’t seem that open to anyone else’s opinions anyway, so I thought I’d say something witty.
I will forget the fact that you have multiple spelling errors in your argument rafflaw and just get to a real question. What then should we do if we catch a known terrorist? I will ask the same question as before. If we catch Osama, how to we get all the information he most certainly has? Do you not think it would be valuable to get info on funds, possible weapons, and training camps? Also, it may be illegal now, but would you ever be up for legalizing it for the better of the country? Slavery was legal, preventing blacks and women from voting was legal. Did that make it right? This country is great, but I have to tell you that we are in different times than 1776 my friend. There were no nukes back then, there wasn’t fear of planes flying into populated cities. We each, as Americans, are entitled to our opinion. And this is why our nation has begun to suffer, because there are such harsh contrasts between people that we can never get along. Now why don’t you go on the weed smoking blog, the going over the speed limit blog, and complain about how what they are doing is wrong too. I think everyone here speeds. Am I correct? Oh my gosh, the rule of law states we shouldn’t do that! It’s so morally wrong. It’s a small case but you have to put it in perspective.
Apparently I got so worked up I forgot how to use punctuation. By the way, I’m still waiting for an answer regarding shamanism.
A country of morals? You think priests raping boys, murders, obese people, pornography, stealing money from shareholders makes a moral country? HAHAHA!! Oh please, the rest of the world is laughing at us, but it’s not because of torture.
“Now why don’t you go on the weed smoking blog, the going over the speed limit blog, and complain about how what they are doing is wrong too. I think everyone here speeds. Am I correct? Oh my gosh, the rule of law states we shouldn’t do that! It’s so morally wrong. It’s a small case but you have to put it in perspective.”
**********************
rafflaw & gyges:
I wouldn’t waste my time on this guy. Besides no knowledge of history, his perspective is warped if he equates speeding with torture. Warped, maybe I should say perverted. He can spell though–and that’s a plus for conservatives.
Fine. I will admit I’m wrong about full blown torture. How about a suggestion that torture should instead be defined. Because I think some things labled as “torture” are not indeed torture.
Gyges,
Miles and Sol are simply repeaters. They simply repeat what George and his communication handlers tell them what to say. As usual, facts do not get in their way. Illegality doesn’t matter because it is George doing it. It is a sad commentary, but true. I do believe that come January, 20th, there will be investigations that will bring some of these felons to justice.
The law is the law my friend mespo. If you are talking about the rule of law, you have to include the whole spectrum. And let’s get deep here, real deep. What about the death penalty? Why are you not bringing that up? Is it torture or morally wrong to kill a man or women because the committed a heinous crime? To me that seems like eye for an eye. Think about that and get back to me.
Mespo,
You are right, but Torture is not the same as being wrong in a politcal debate. And now Miles wants to discuss what is torture and what isn’t torture. It has already been defined by law and international treaties. The world understands this, but George W. and his blind followers do not.
Mespo,
I wasn’t wasting my time. If I can’t defend my beliefs with rational arguments based on reality and not on my gut feelings I look at whether I need to change them them.
Plus how often do I get a chance to use that whole shtick about “a part of the anatomy…?”
M,
I would state right away that the death penalty is wrong and does not serve its stated purposes. It doesn’t discourage other murderers and it doesn’t help society to kill in society’s name. If you are trying to suggest that since the country will execute someone, we are free to just torture bad people, then you are incorrect. Ask George W. who has presided over more executions in Texas than anyone else, why are the murders still happening? Murder is wrong, torture is wrong and both are illegal already. And in my belief the death penalty is wrong. Unfortunately, it isn’t illegal, …yet.
You guys are probably gonna vote for Obama right? The guy who was friends with a man that is a terrorist and was pictured standing on a burning American flag. He used to belong to a church that was anything but friendly. His wife hates America and is finally proud of something in this country. And oh yeah, he’s been to 58 states, two more to go. Oh did I mention he wants to talk with Iran and North Korea to make good relations with them? Are you serious? Nice.
What is crazy is that it’s the technique of waterboarding that makes it torture. If anyone had this done to them they would probably more often than not say that it is. I think before anyone in the government can vote yes it isn’t torture that they should be publicly waterboarded on C-Span and we could actually see their reaction. Fear Factor - Congressional Edition. I would think you could get the information the same by just the face first in a tub of water method. Plus to this being it’s hard to put this in the same context as waterboarding. One seems deviously devised while the other is a simpler way of getting what you need. Here’s a way to not ‘torture’ them. Put them in a room with a professional boxer. They have the ‘opportunity to defend’ themselves as well. Better methods need to be employed. I would say beating the hell out of someone is more humane than some of the stuff that we are doing. It’s like we’re trying to permanently traumatize people in the process of interrogation, not to mention the innocent people that have it done to them. This is probably the bigger issue. If ‘coercive interrogation’ was used on only people we knew were involved directly and that they had information we couldn’t find on their computer or such, then I could see why torture would be employed, but it is the fact that we do this to many/all the ‘prisoners’ that we ‘detain’in this ‘war on terror,’ that really upsets me and makes me feel like our countries values and honor have been corrupted/hijacked. The real world is not like the Series 24.
You guys complain about me being closed-minded. But you are just as bad.
M,
Yeah, well McCain’s an stinky old man. That’s why we shouldn’t allow Coastal drilling!! And no true Scottsman would put cream on their oats!
I just thought I’d throw that out there while we’re trying to hit all the logical fallacies.
How people just don’t get mad about stupid things? We can argue forever, I think we can agree we will not change opinions. So is the life of politics. What is interesting is that you and I don’t know about half the things the government is doing out there. Most of it is for our protection. You always hear about the bad things we do, but you never hear about the plots the FBI, CIA, and NSA stop everyday that do in fact take place. So just relax and take a deep breath, and be thankful that you live in this country. If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine, you have your opinion. I’ve only made fun of your spelling today, I haven’t gone as low as to say you’re compared to crap. This is why we are becoming undone as a country.
Miles,
I am sorry if my poor spelling insulted you. To answer your question what should we do if we catch Osama bin Laden? it is simple, you do what the FBI and the Military do and believe in, you question him in a legal manner. You can get solid information from criminals through legal and moral means and the FBI is quite good at it. They even left Gitmo because they didn’t believe the methods were legal or effective.
M,
Haven’t you seen the news. Your BFF is sending a diplomat to open up relations with, Iran! Imagine that. A few months ago he said it was like appeasement to talk with them directly and he is now appeasing them, I guess. Now that you have been shown that torture is illegal, ineffective and immoral, you want to discuss the upcoming election? Just what are you afraid of if Obama wins?
I’m sorry, I’m not 14. What does BFF stand for?
My final thought. Go read a book called Inside the FBI. You’ll find that the FBI isn’t as moral as you think.
Miles,
I forgot to answer one of your questions. No, I would not be in favor of legalizing torture.
M,
I am very closed minded. I only listen to people who debate using facts that they can back up. In fact I’m so bad, I only let myself be persuaded by those facts if the conclusions drawn from them make sense.
I did like your point about the Death Penalty. We should constantly be reviewing our beliefs to make sure that at the very least we’re consistent. We also (as bot you and Miles pointed out) shouldn’t be afraid to make sure that our laws are just.
So same time tomorrow for the debate on legalizing gambling?
M,
Thanks for suggesting that I am under 14 years old. BFF means Best Friends Forever. By the way, I have to confess. I am not 14. I am 57. I guess your suggestion that the FBI is not always moral means that it is ok to torture. Wow.
M,
I will not equate legalized gambling as being the same as torture.
M,
JT is a constitutional lawyer, not a Wall street investor.
The problem with the internet is there’s no-one to do a rim-shot at the end of a one-liner.
No, it means you seem to have this impression that just because they backed out of torture, they are so nice and moral. And I asked because the only people I’ve heard use BFF were teenagers, but I guess it’s cool for you to use gramps.
And I have yet to hear from you guys on the morality of these things: A country of morals? You think priests raping boys, murders, obese people, pornography, stealing money from shareholders makes a moral country? HAHAHA!! Oh please, the rest of the world is laughing at us, but it’s not because of torture.
forcing someone with the threat of physical duress(i.e. waterboarding) constitutes TORTURE–Plain & Simple!!!!!!!
rafflaw,
I didn’t know what BFF meant either! Thanks!
Well this has been interesting. At least we know where some of our tax money has gone. It’s a living for them, I guess.
CURSE YOUR BAD SPELLING!
M,
I would say we’re suturing the gaping chest wound before putting ointment on the hemorrhoids.
Gyges,
Well said.
Jill,
I am glad that I could be of assistance on the burning BFF question. I will work harder on my spelling!
I’m glad too. Of all the things we could be worried about, it was the most important. Thank heavens someone called you on that!
Jill,
Spellingness is next to grammerlyness which is just down the street from cleanliness.
Who CARES if the Spelling Isn’t PERFECT, Do you GET the MESSAGE? !!!
Don’t you guys think in certain situations (dire), that torture should be used. It may not work all the time, but what if 1/10, torture saves the lives of 50,000 people from an attack? Would you still be concerned with the morality. This is all hypothetical of course. Here are some quotes:
The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues that in extreme situations, in order to prevent a tragedy, a “torture warrant” should be issued by U.S. courts to use hot needles under the nails, for example. This would make the use open to security, even thought it would be against the Geneva conventions [and other international treaties].
as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate. …
Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer,” said Professor Bagaric, “But in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they’re not directly involved in creating that threat doesn’t mean they can wash their hands of responsibility.
Given this, and Miles question. Now would you torture Osama?
Just brainstorming here…
Can citizens form a truth and reconciliation committee? I would like to see the information come out, reparations made and torture to stop.
James,
I wouldn’t torture anyone, ethics aside I don’t have the stomach for it. There’s also an aspect that hasn’t been brought up, if we torture the citizens of other countries, we lose the ability to demand that other countries don’t torture U.S. citizens or soldiers.
None of these thought experiments really address the issue that the article (and Jill) bring up. Congress has the duty to investigate the extremely likely possibility that Bush broke the law.
Jill,
At the very least they can hound their Representative in Congress to call privately and publicly for the Speaker to allow Impeachment.
James,
The experts at the FBI and the Pentagon do not believe that torture works. That is a falsehood perpetuated by the same felons who are committing the crime of torture. If Bush had gotten anything really good, he would have “leaked” it by now. National Security has never stopped him from his political goals. (I.E. outing a covert agent as punishment for her husband for being correct about “yellowcake” lies that Bush pushed in the lead up to war in Iraq.)
Let’s just hope that if and when Mr. Ashcroft is arrested for something, i.e. Crimes and Misdomeanors, tax evasion, speeding, littering, his questioners get to use the same techniques on him as he proposes for others.
Torture is not justified under our system of government. It is (for most), and should be, repugnant in a civilized society. Advocats for its use are borderline, or not so borderline, sociopaths.
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
“The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood due to the lack of love and care for the child.”[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder.”
I find the above characteristics descriptive of much of the Bush administration.
Gregory,
Your APD definition does seem to fit George W. I wonder if the cocaine could have made that worse?
M:
“If you are talking about the rule of law, you have to include the whole spectrum. And let’s get deep here, real deep. What about the death penalty?”
******************
You asked me to think about that and get back to you. I thank you for the invitation, and I should tell you that I do and have thought about it quite a bit. It’s really part of my job practicing law. The law is, in fact, the law, and it can be uplifting and it can be, as Dickens said, “an ass.” There is a significant difference between what is moral, and what is legal. The two are not congruent circles perfectly matching the contours of the other if overlain. The law is policy, and sometimes it is morally neutral, like budgets, or road building though even there some aspects of that moral circle overlap. Mostly though the law is about workable solutions to human problems. The problem here is defense against a committed and dangerous foe. It is not new to us, nor any other civilization ever on Earth. The law of war is just as developed as the law of using the road, or the law of contracts. Certain acts are prohibited, and that decision was made by consensus. To violate it, invites retribution and recrimination for breach of your word, all in the name of expediency. We could not expect others to comply with the law if we do not do so ourselves. Also experience has shown that torture is not used to gain valuable information as it may incidentally do, but instead it is done to intimidate and demoralize the opponent. Other means of interrogation work much better. Just ask any cop who is being honest.
The issue about the death penalty presents a legal and moral question. It is undoubtedly legal under certain well-defined circumstances, as it is clearly a primary deterrent and thus undeniably good policy from a prevention standpoint. We do know that in capital crimes as opposed to run-of-the-mill murders, the risk of re-offending is high and the effects of that risk are devastating and irreversible. Thus the logical underpinnings of the policy are self-evident.
I do agree that morally the penalty is wrong. While society undoubtedly has the right, legally and historically, to take a non-innocent life, I have serious concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the system. To trust it to correctly discern innocence from guilt in many circumstances seems misplaced loyalty to a human and thus flawed system. Project Innocence has confirmed my fears many times over.In addition, I cannot support the punishment because I believe its underlying premise–perfect free will–is invalid. Our actions are a complex mix of experience, intelligence, biology, and emotions which can trigger both rage and sublime achievements. Environments in some homes almost insure horrific adults whose only crime (before the subject crime) was being born poor or to incredibly bad parents. To punish someone because of the circumstances of their birth seems morally repugnant to me, and to many. As someone who has seen these criminal defendants close up, I can tell you that with few exceptions, there but for the grace of God go many of us.
Thank you allowing me to briefly crystallize my thoughts again on the death penalty and I invite your reply.
Whats really sad here is Ashcroft almost came out a historical hero. The night Alberto Gonzales, and Andrew Card went to Ashcrofts hospital bedside to induce him into signing off on Bush’s warrentless wiretapping program, they had first went to Deputy Attorney General,James Comey, who when they had asked to sign off on the illegal program, replied (paraphrased) “Comey don’t play that”.
So now here they were, trying to get a man under the influence of heavy medication and in and out of delirium, to sign a document that he, and they knew, was illegal.
Yet even in this weakened, delirious condition, he knew that was a line he wasn’t willing to cross, so he raised a pale hand, pointed his finger at Deputy AG James Comey, then “acting” AG, and said, “there’s the Attorney General”. And knowing Comey’s answer already, the White House Chief of Staff and his puppet friend, Senor Wences, brushed passed Comey arrogantly and exited, stage right.
Man what I would have paid to see that moment. In that moment, I felt Ashcroft had redeemed a multitude of sins, so to speak. He demonstrated the kind of concern for his country and fellow countrymen that I want in an AG.
So its sad to see him now, backtracking on that great moment, and once more carrying Bush’s water…so to speak.
Jim Comey was a neighbor and is a friend and colleague. He was on my radio show a few times. I can tell you from experience “Comey don’t play that game.” Why do you think he’s out of that political hell hole!
He did his fellow countrymen right on that day, thats for sure. I was always so impressed with that story, and always puzzled why more people don’t talk about it. The MSM never touches it, but its, …well.. its like something out of a spy novel. Here, the White House sending its top people to the bed of an ill AG, just because the acting AG already told them, and justifiably so, that thier program was illegal and refused to sign off on it. So now, the ailing AG, upholds his deputies decision and sends the two criminals packing.
It was a great story, and I wish the MSM would talk more about that night. Particularly in light of the Congress’s recent decision to back-date authorize what James Comey, wouldn’t sign off to, on that night.
Did the Congress ever bother, or Barack Obama for that matter, ever bother to consider that if both the republican AG, and his Deputy who was acting AG, refused to sign off on it, because they, as attorneys, knew it was illegal, then maybe voting to make it retroactively legal is a bad idea?
Bartlebee,
I agree with your question to Obama(and Congress) about FISA. It really distubed me and I joined the Stop FISA group on the Obama website. Around 10,000 people asked him to stick to his original policy concerning FISA and he would not. I would have expected that from many in Congress, but I did not expect that from him. That being said, he is still our best chance to bring this country back under the rule of law.
Mespo and Bartlebee,
I am glad to hear you both give Kudo’s to Jim Comey for standing his ground. I only wish there were more like him in the Bush Administration. Hey Mespo, are you still on the radio and how can we listen to it?
rafflaw,
I have to admit…from the context above, I thought BFF was Best Fuck’n Friends.
mespo,
Your fans are ready to tune in!
Jill:
The radio show is gone. We are thinking about a comeback of “Is That Legal?,” but no takers yet here in Richmond. Maybe a little too progressive. But who knows?
Bartlebee,
That being said, he is still our best chance to bring this country back under the rule of law
I know, and believe me, thats the conundrum I am in. If I vote for him, I’m sorta saying I’m ok with him voting yay on HR6034 and if I don’t vote for him, then I’m sorta saying I’m ok if Father Demntia takes over the nukes on Jan 20th.
He vexes me.
I’m terribly vexed.
Sorry for the Typo’s Rafflaw, that was in response to you.
Bartlebee,
I figured it was directed towards me. Thanks.
Jill,
I like your definition of BFF better.
Mespo,
Maybe you can sell your show by having Ashcroft answer the title question concerning waterboarding!
I’m glad though that this article addresses the real culprit here. The one we really need to focus our attention on. And thats Speaker Pelosi, who refuses to do anything more than a little smoke and mirror act over impeachment, which I think everyone in the country would be happy to see.
I think the problem is she’d be next in line perhaps? I’m not sure how the succession would play out, but I believe if Cheney and Bush were both impeached, for the same “high crimes and misdemeanors” then the mantle would fall to her, naturally, being the Speaker of the House. Then Robert Byrd, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then, …wait for it…. Condie Rice. So I don’t if they’d make some sort of deal, where Condie gets to be pres (making her the first black and first female president before Obama gets in) in exchange for republican votes of impeachment, or if they’d be compelled to follow the Constitutional line of succession, but I guess maybe Pelosi’s afraid of a confrontation of some sort. After all, Bush is technically at war, and perhaps he’s threatened, or more likely, Cheney, has threatend to institute martial law, and arrest congress as trying to overthrow his govt?
Some might laugh at the idea, but I remember Dan Rather and Peter Jennings talking about Bush using the Military to arrest Al Gore if he didn’t concede back in the 2000 election. it was breif, and they only mentioned it once or twice, but I remember it clearly.
I doubt Cheney’s planning on going down without a fight, and I imagine its possible that members of Congress have been threatened in some things. Look at the fear in Pelosi’s eyes, whenever she talks about the spying scandal, or impeachment. She looks like a person who has something to hide.
I know one thing. If investors thought a democratic president, even Nancy Pelosi, was going to take over BEFORE Jan 20th, I bet we’d see a rebound in trader confidence like you wouldn’t believe.
Also, then congress could stop sitting on their hands, and do something about the current mortage crisis.
Right now of course they won’t do anything, because they don’t want to make Bush look good.
I wish this discussion were over for good, but: Would you torture an animal (say a dog) if there was an absolute certainty that, as you did so, you would become ever more privy to iformation on an imminent terrorist event certain to kill thousands? Let’s say the torture takes five minutes. How about ten? An hour? You may believe it feels a different when the tortured being is known to be innocent, but if you search your soul, you will see it isn’t different at all. Torture hurts the torturer in ways which echo through the ages. Deliberately torturing something or someone feels the same to the torturer and his or her family and friends no matter what the circumstances. We can’t really be still arguing about the meaning of the word torture. It has been defined and that definition is refined everytime evil spurs another way to effect it. That is just common sense. There is no trying not to torture only torturing and not torturing.
Damn. Well said.
Its almost a like a mindset. Just the idea that cruelty called something else, is somehow less cruel.
Kiddo,
You are absolutely correct. There is no grey areas here. Only smoke and mirrors from the Bush regime.
What has always gotten me about the Comey hospital story is that while Ashcroft may view himself as a Highly Moral Person, that has never been my view of him. I thought it was a terrible thing for justice in this country the day the he was appointed AG, and the fact that he is willing to go along with renaming the “(non-chinese) water torture” or “waterboard torture” “waterboarding” so as to be able to decided that after all these centuries it is no longer torture, and is willing to do that even being intimately aware of what that means to the treatment of all combatants and alleged combatants.
So, we come to the hospital room and Comey’s story and we find something so horrific that a large group of Justice Department and perhaps FBI officials were willing to stand up against the President and his stooges, willing to quit en mass. How bad was what they wouldn’t go along with? What was it? We know about the programs that were an acceptable replacement. What was unacceptable? To Ashcroft?
Any chance that it was a “High Crime or Misdemeanor”? Seems likely, actually. The OK stuff seems to reach felony level.
I really want to know. I really wish Congress had the nerve to ask. I fear that some of them know and realize we must never know that they knew.
Jim Burrows
1, July 18, 2008 at 3:31 am
How bad was what they wouldn’t go along with? What was it?
Well, its pretty simple actually. All you have to do is connect the dots.
It’s been spelled out for us for years now. Bush alluded to it when he spoke of “digital switching hubs” back in 2003, and the “data warehousing” and “data mining” efforts, which he did right about the same time CNN took us inside an “NSA” listening center. All the pieces are there. We just have to put them together.
The main clue, lies in revelation about the program, revealed on national television when CNN gave us our inside look at the NSA spying capabilities. The un-named analyst with the face blurred told us that whenever certain words are spoken over a telephone, super computers “start” recording the conversation. Words like “b0mb”, “airplane”, etc, will “trigger” these computers to “start” recording.
Now, given that revelation, all you have to do, to answer the question of “what they’re doing”, is to ask yourself a question.
That question?
If they can “start” recording when you say certain keywords, then how did they “know” you said them?
Once you answer that question, you’ll get it.
They’re listening to everyone. Everyone, every word, every conversation, everywhere in the US.
How? Simple. Using technolgies we’ve already been told about, that is, “mirroring” traffic using “cable splitters” placed at key traffic hubs around the country, they are able to copy all traffic, voice and data, that passes through these central switching hubs and send it to that “secret room” that we read all read about that was set up in key telecommunication companies who agreed to support Bush’s program.
From those rooms, the data is most likely switched off to be data warehoused offsite, for later “data mining” efforts.
All if this is public knowledge. They’ve actually been fairly open about it, its just no one wants to put the picture together.
If you doubt it, then ask yourself the magic question.
IF they can ’start’ recording when certain keywords are spoken, how did they ‘know’ those words were spoken in the first place?
The other key, is in the digitized voice. The program was completed during the Clinton admin, but was “not in place” until Bush took over. Thats because the telecoms were updating to digitial switching technology from the old analog switches. Analog switches would require actually recording the calls, and would not be searchable (mined).
Digital switches however mean the voice data can simply be switched off in binary form, and searched like any other computer data, assuming you had the proper software and equipment, as well as physical access to the switching hubs.
Its all there in public. We just need people to start putting the pieces together. Assuming people can get their heads around the magnitude of the program, and what it means about their personal communications.
Course, now its all legal-like.
Thanks to HR 6034, Barack Obama, and a congress who couldn’t be bothered to worry about our 4th Amendment protections.
The ones we used to have.
Bartlebee,
Don’t remind me of HR 6034!
Sorry.
I know Obama would like us to forget.
“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.
Taken from the Waiver the Military requires anyone voluntarily allowing themselves to be waterboarded to sign, first.
Perhaps since Congress is still debating over whether or not it constitutes torture, someone could show them THIS?
It does pretty much remove all questions, both moral, and legal.
You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case.
You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned,
Christopher Hitchens
I believe I know what torture is - being “BartleBoarded” every time
I see all that is available for posts is 8 out of a possible 15 comments belonging to him - with 6 out those 8 being on the same article…
I don’t have time.
Well gee Patty, thanks for bypassing the actual discussion to launch another unwarranted and ignorant attack on me.
And I wasn’t aware that this blog suffered from such an overwhelming surplus of comments, or that I was keeping you from doing something…. but by all means, if you don’t “have time”, then don’t let me keep you.
Feel free to not let the door hit you on the way out.
Oh and by the way, you might want to pick up a new calculator while you’re out. The one you have seems to be broken.
Prior to your unprovoked insult to me, this thread had a total of 95 comments, out of which only 13 comments were Bartlebees.
So something’s clearly up with your calculator.
Or your ability to interpret the data.
Get your own blog - for people who are really interested in
‘All Bartlebee All The Time’.
Last time I checked, this was still jonathanturley.org and ‘we’, managed to conduct a fairly polite and orderly exchange. One could follow it, especially if you’re a regular, ie who was responding and
to what.
We can’t do that with your machine-gun approach to the same article.
It’s rude.
Patty C
1, July 18, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Get your own blog - for people who are really interested in
‘All Bartlebee All The Time’
So 13 out of 95 posts, is what equals “Bartlebee All The Time”?
Well…don’t worry. Its not your fault.
I’ve always said homeschooling failures are the shortcomings of the parent, and not the child.
Patty C
1, July 18, 2008 at 7:50 pm
‘we’, managed to conduct a fairly polite and orderly exchange.
So coming into a thread, and completely unprovoked, attacking another blogger like a rabid weasel, insulting him without end whenever you see him, without any provocation whatsoever while demanding that he not be able to comment with the other commenters, “fairly polite”?
If thats what you call polite and orderly, I’d hate you see you when you’re being rude and ignorant.
Patty C
1, July 18, 2008 at 7:50 pm
One could follow it, especially if you’re a regular, ie who was responding and
to what.
We can’t do that with your machine-gun approach to the same article.
Really?
Too fast for you ay?
I thought you had to be smart to go to law school.
Patty C
1, July 18, 2008 at 7:50 pm
It’s rude.
No Patty.
You’re rude.
In fact, you’re one of the most rude, ignorant and illiterate of bloggers I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter in a blog.
You’re rude and ignorant, each time you attack me out of the blue, acting like some sort of blog-nanny, and decided what new bloggers can say, and comment on.
You’re rude and ignorant each time you attack me, and act like you have some sort of moral higher ground, when in fact, you’re just an ignorant spoiled blog bully who tries ordering around anyone who dares come into “your” blog.
And each and every time you and your ignorant attitude decide to attack me out of the blue, you’ll get back, exactly what you put out.
Patty C
1, July 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I see all that is available for posts is 8 out of a possible 15 comments belonging to him - with 6 out those 8 being on the same article…
I don’t have time
But if you’d like, perhaps you could explain to me sometime,your particular version of homeschooled math.
See, there were 95 comments at the time you posted this little integer implosion.