The respected Massachusetts-based group Physicians for Human Rights has published a report finding that 11 former detainees showed clear signed of torture in medical examinations following their release from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.. The detainees were released for lack of evidence of terrorism.
The 121-page report details evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses. Retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army’s investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003, wrote the foreword to the report and stated “There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.”
The record on the American torture program is now comprehensive and unavoidable, including the recent disclosure that the Administration began work on the torture program long before any inquiry from the field, here — a direct contradiction of earlier statements from the Administration.
Despite the fact that interrogators and officials now admit to using torture, here, Congress continues to feign interest while withholding any substantive action against those who ordered a torture program.
For the full story, click here.
What is most striking is that these men were released for lack of evidence of terrorism. A recent study showed that the Administration continued to hold men for years after it became clear that they were innocent, here.
Jake:
“My point: Aggressive interogation techniques should be used to protect “our country” from “terrorists”.”
“I agree, who gives a damn about how these terrorists are treated.”
‘They hate us for our freedoms’
‘The war on terror should not be restrained by the constitution.’
‘The restraints of the constitution are inapplicable during ‘the war on terror.’
‘The judicial branch should have no say or checking power against the executive in his war on terror– e.g. no habeas corpus’
N.B.
“The principle of the separation of the powers of government is fundamental to the very existence of constitutional government as established in the United States. The division of governmental powers into executive, legislative, and judicial represents probably the most important principle of government declaring and guaranteeing the liberties of the people. It prevents the exercise of autocratic power, is a matter of fundamental necessity, and is essential to the maintenance of a Republican Form Of Government. In short, this division of power provision serves to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY… Although there may be a blending of powers in certain respects, in a broad sense the safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on the strict observance of the independence of the several departments. Each constitutes a check or balance upon the exercise of its power by any other department, and, accordingly, a concentration of power in the hands of one person or class is prevented, and a commingling of essentially different powers in the same hands is precluded.” (SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, Importance and purpose of [the] principle, 16A Am Jur 2d CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 247)
“In short, [the separation of powers] serves to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY”
‘They hate us for our freedoms.’
‘The ‘separation of powers’ doctrine is the only portion of the constitution that truly makes us free.’ (See Lord Scalia’s Separation of Powers opinions; e.g. Minestretta, et. al.)
‘The most effective way to fight the war on terror is to disregard the constitution.’
‘Disregarding the restraints OF specifically enumerated powers in the constitution makes us less free.’
‘If they hate us for our freedoms then disregarding the document that makes us free will therefore make us less hated by terrorists.’
‘The less terrorists hate us the less likely they’ll be to attack us.’
‘Therefore, the best way to protect ourselves from terrorists and fight the war on terror is to hate freedom as much as terrorists and be more hateful of the document that makes us free; e.g by setting up a government unfettered by “constitutional restraints” or any other ‘division of power provisions’ formerly serving to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY.’
After all…
911 changed everything.
I meant to put quotes around safe. This way of acting makes no one safe.
I just found this info:
posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 from McClatchy news:
Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross.
The far right used to be more courageous. “Better dead than red.” Now it’s, “better safe, make others sorry”!
rafflaw:
Don’t worry. Why try to teach a pig to sing, it’s impossible and annoys the pig. Believe me the guy calling names is always losing the argument as is evident here. And the use of euphemisms to mask torture is positively Bushonian. I am glad he liked my adjectives though. Wonder what he would do with a gerund?
Psst, between you and me he does appear a tad intimidated as methinks he doth protest too much that he is not! He went from “…if we use interrogation techniques that may be borderline torture on an enemy combatant and we receive information to save American lives, then I’m all for it. These people are less than animals,” and the popular “who gives a damn about how these terrorists are treated,” to the now chastened, gosh, golly gee, I only meant “aggressive interrogation.” If he double spoke any more it would be stereo. To paraphrase Bogart, I don’t mind a foolish, self-deluding commentator, I just hate a cut-rate one.
Mespo,
Don’t waste any more time on these neocons. They don’t bother with facts and just try to keep yelling stop the terrorist any way that you can. Jake, et al, If you can’t deal with reality and understand that is a country based on the rule of law, not the rule of the mob, you may actually learn something here. One more thing, you may want to read the 9/11 commission report to actually find out about George W. sitting on his hands and ignoring the threats. Finally, if the rule of law means nothing to you, maybe you should just ask yourselves one moralistic question concerning torture. Who Would Jesus Torture?
Gyges,
“I’m only easily distracted by shining thing.” Then maybe you shouldn’t look at all the nickels mespo is throwing around.
mespo,
Let’s get your facts straight first. Ms. Jill started the name calling, which typically begins on the left side of the aisle.
If you try to overanalyze my words and somehow believe I am promoting torture. Well you are sorely mistaken.
My point:
Aggressive interogation techniques should be used to protect “our country” from “terrorists”.
Not one time in this thread did I ever say I am for “torture”. I am for aggressive techniques to help uncover and/or protect our interests.
Neo-criminals, very funny. It only proves that you are exactly what you describe. It’s a shame you do not see it. I am open to debate. I have said many times, Liberals are not always correct, nor am I as a conservative.
I see you like to throw adjectives around like nickels. It’s just a poor attempt at intimidation. It smells of Freshman Comp 101.
Gyes:
Discussions of morality without mention of human rights is like discussing child birth without mentioning the mother.
Jake:
Just to correct a little legal error as you rant on. Natural persons are accorded human rights by a civilized country based upon you presence there, not your citizenship. Illegals enjoy basic human rights under our Constitution which accords rights to “persons” not just “citizens”, even the illegals at Guantanamo Bay where American law still applies. That’s the point of the ruling, your ravings notwithstanding.
Jake,
Again, we’re not talking about what rights they have, just about the morality of torture. You can quit trying to change the subject, I’m only easily distracted by shining thing.
Gyges:
I ‘ve been amused at this thread too. One of the Jakes is obviously a right wing plant, since noone in their right mind promotes torture so why debate it. It’ s illegal, ineffective, and just plain wrong, and anyone who can’t see that is unworthy of respect or reply. Jill is quite a moral person and is trying to rationalize with him, but to what end. Jake is an abusive ideologue who thinks invective outweights thought, and his argument devoid of any factual basis can be stated simply as : I am afraid, I want these people punished guilty or not, and the law won’t stand in my way. He waives about this talisman of liberlaism as if it produces some stain on your character. Well I ‘m not afraid of the term, since I don’t assume someone is correct or incorrect in their reasoning because of a label some frothing opponent places upon them. That goes for the conservative label too. It’s facts that make arguments not beliefs or opinions, and Jake et al are sorely lacking those pesky things. It’s like a college freshman bull session, but with one difference, this one not as erudite.
What we have here are some kids, and probably niblet, making one last gasp attempt to save this Administration from its criminality with a “might makes right” argument. It won’t work because expediency doesn’t trump the law in any civilized society, and these commentators, hopelessly trying to defend the indefensible, place themselves outside of civilized discourse.
Neo-criminals, RIP — your time has passed.
Gyges,
Agree.
However, facts are irrelevant to the “torture” crowd.
Maybe someone could come up with a torture lapel pen these folks could proudly wear to prove they are patriotic.
Gyges,
You had me laughing about the oats….
My point about the public defender is somewhat related. If we are willing to give “enemy combatants” all the rights of a US citizen, then the next step would be to read them their rights. The farther you go into this the more gray it becomes.
What’s the difference between “torture” and “aggressive interrogation techniques”? Gray area I would say. I just think it comes down to marketing.
Just like “jungle” to “Rain Forest”. (tongue in cheek)
That “convicted criminals in their care” should probably be “Convicted criminals in their custody.”
Jake,
I just did a quick scroll through of all of the comments, and as far as I can tell the debate hasn’t been about what legal council that the “enemy combatants” have a right to. It’s been about if it’s o.k. to torture\aggressively question people. My argument addressed that question. So yes, THIS debate IS as clear cut as I make it out to be. To give an analogy, the U.S. courts say that prison guards can’t beat the convicted criminals in their care, but when they made that ruling they didn’t say “well I guess since you can’t beat prisoners, you have to set all the criminals free.”
I’m sorry but changing the subject to one that’s roughly related doesn’t mean you win. Neither do personal attacks on those who disagree with you (I direct this at everyone), and I’d suggest that we all avoid the fallacy of the unbounded middle. The last mainly because I don’t want to get in an argument about true Scottsmen and the presence of sugar in their oats.
The fossils say No!
Jill,
Get over yourself. So what group are you with and who are you trying to influence? Since you’re trying to label the conservative views on this website, it’s our turn.
Jill the Moveon.org representative is busy today! Wish we could read more of your extreme liberal views.
Gyges,
The debate isn’t as clear cut as you like to make it. Should we pay for a public defender as soon as an enemy combatant is in custody?
Psy-ops is busy today!
I was originally going to try and make a humorous post about how childish this whole conversation is, but it makes me sad that we’re actually having an argument about torture being right or wrong. I think in the end the best argument against torture has already been made and cataloged several times over. It’s the pictures of the victims Khmer Rouge’s “interrogations” in the prison S-21.
jasonconga,
I would say Jefferson, but that wouldn’t be correct. More like a liberal around 2002 selling bumper stickers and stuff.
Here is the problem with the left. Liberals like to voice their strong liberal opinions and their right to free speech, but as soon as a conservative starts to question and push back a little, they are all up in arms. It’s just like people who hate foxnews. Liberals believe foxnews is the evil empire. It’s just another view, contrary to yours. If it were not for us on the right, your liberal views wouldn’t matter.
Aggressive interrogation techniques to save a life, an American life.