Yesterday Bush decided to implement a new law whereby ”torture by all American personnel will be outlawed.” This decision came about specifically because the events at Abu Graib and Guantanamo have only recently become known to the outside world. .

Here it is 2005, “in the year of our gracious Lord”, and they are just now getting around to making torture a criminal offence. Now that’s scary! The implications are deep and may bring to light a long history of undemocratic and inhumane practices by U.S. citizens in government positions. And what should the American people think about that …………… ?

“Why looky here, Mavis! Turns out that pretty lil’ ol’ Lindy England girl was no crim’nal after all! She was well in her rights as a ‘Mercan citizen to torture them there A-rabs. I reckon they has ta spring her out the hoos-gow and set her free! Som’ bitch! I done told you that she wuz a gosh darn scape goat, and I was right, wad’n I?!”

I’ll bet that Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, and even Vlad “the Impaler” are all turning over in their graves with joy. One could even forgive Saddam Hussein for dancing the jig of laughter on his cell-bunk too.

There is one thing I don’t really understand, though ………..

The government also said yesterday that they were “sending a message to the world” that the U.S. is a civilised country and that Americans are not like those terrorists.

You see, I don’t understand that. Shouldn’t they have said ………

“Once we put the law into effect, we will be joining the ranks of civilised countries, some of which already outlawed torture nearly 100 years ago - but until the new law kicks in, we will carry on our history as an uncivilised country by continuing to torture people, just the same as the terrorists do.”

Now doesn’t that make more sense?

Settle down Catch. Torture was already illegal in the U.S. What they're also making illegal is the stuff that existed in the gray area - not quite torture (by the generally accepted international definition) but not exactly nice behavior either. "Waterboarding" for example. Which as I stated in another thread, is a move I strongly support.

how do you plan on getting info out of captured terrorists then? say please?

Originally posted by Travh20
how do you plan on getting info out of captured terrorists then? say please?

I'm no interrogator, but I am aware there is many a method to gather information from an enemy prisoner. Barbituates, isolation, negoatiations, etc...
Trav, torture is immoral and is not something we should involve ourselves in. Treating prisoners brutishly is far from how we should conduct ourselves as Americans. Keep in mind the ends don't justify the means.

all of those things except negotioation will be banned, so without those, how will we get info from captured terrorists? negotiation? we already have a policy in place to not negotiate with terrorists. If you ask me the whole thing is a crock of shit. Like Hutz said, we already have a law against torture, if we get rid of the gray area we will be down to using the magic word.

I knowhtis has been played to death, but its really the best example of this: if we had a 9-11 hijacker in custody on 9-10, would you be agaisnt making him feel uncomforable to make him talk? like making him squaat in a cold room for a few hours, or humliating him? I am not even talking about torture, i am in the gray area

Maybe if Bush would work with the international community and the american people and the red cross we wouldn't be against some forms of torture.

It's because he wants to do it in secret with no oversight that it turns people off. It's not the torture -- it's the mentality of the man that wants it done.

Torture is a very broad term, rather than banning every form of objectionable behavior towards the prisoners in question, shouldn't there be developed certain levels and definitions of what this torment should be interpreted as? It seems only rational that then we'd be able to determine what to cease and what we're allowed to do within ethical and legal grounds.

Torture needs oversight which the white house doesn't allow. No one gets to see the torture or the victims. Totally secret in secret prisons.

Riddle me this ... would you let your kids attend a school where the administrators had no oversight?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Maybe if Bush would work with the international community and the american people and the red cross we wouldn't be against some forms of torture.

It's because he wants to do it in secret with no oversight that it turns people off. It's not the torture -- it's the mentality of the man that wants it done.

so torture is OK as long as the left wing gets to have a say in it? that speaks volumes about your real intentions dop. yoiu are not against torture, you are agaisnt not being part of it.

Originally posted by Travh20
so torture is OK as long as the left wing gets to have a say in it? that speaks volumes about your real intentions dop. yoiu are not against torture, you are agaisnt not being part of it.

Where did you get the "left wing" comment from? Oh, sorry...I forgot you are almost incapable of discussing anything without reducing it to a conflict between the left and the right.

BTW, I don't think interrogating someone under the influence of sodium pentathol is considered "torture".

becasue thats what this board is all aobut, left and right, and I am kind of tired of being the guy who gets singled out when everyoen else does it too, and the left wigners like dop , guerilla and freethinker do it more then anyone.

anyway, I cant see how you can be for drugging someone and not for humiliating them or making them uncomfortable.

torturing actual terrorists for information that would prevent actual attacks would seem justified - but lets face it - this is a fairy tale. The reality is we hold prisoners in Gitmo indefinately with no charges and no recourse just because we feel like doing so. Ability to Torture would be the same - a free hand to do whatever we wanted. The clear ban on torture is the only sane and proper place to be.

Originally posted by DrewM
torturing actual terrorists for information that would prevent actual attacks would seem justified - but lets face it - this is a fairy tale. The reality is we hold prisoners in Gitmo indefinately with no charges and no recourse just because we feel like doing so. Ability to Torture would be the same - a free hand to do whatever we wanted. The clear ban on torture is the only sane and proper place to be.

Absolutely correct Drew. I hate the fact that we are holding people without trial. Maybe some will say that they aren't "people" they're "terrorists", but how can we know what they are if there's no trials?

the united states is now the standard bearer for torture. What's next? We replace the torch in lady liberty's hand with a wired set of gonads?

Worse yet -- we find out NSA was ordered by Bush to spy on american citizens and the New York Slimes admits it held back the article for a full 12 months at the request of the white house.

Even given all of that ... republicans in congress are complaining they couldn't get the votes for extending the Patriot Act today.

WTF did they expect? Did they expect america was going to be happy to find out they were the victims of a secret spy game?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
the united states is now the standard bearer for torture. What's next? We replace the torch in lady liberty's hand with a wired set of gonads?

that would go over well in San Francisco :D

LOL - It'd probably start a riot ... or a lovefest.

Speaking of SF -- I'm leaving sometime next week and heading to LA and then on to Phoenix.

A month in SF -- that's enough in the winter.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Settle down Catch. Torture was already illegal in the U.S.
To be fair, there is some merit in what you say - the difficulty has been that there is SERIOUS difficulty in getting this new "law" to apply to the CIA. Apparently making torture illegal is a general idea but the U.S. government has never made this idea compulsory to CIA agents and it is, therefore, still "legal" for agents to use it. I don't have all the details at hand but maybe you could have a search and let us know?

Originally posted by Travh20
how do you plan on getting info out of captured terrorists then? say please?
I see. Shall we talk about all the “terrorists” that have been released from Guantanamo because they were innocent (i.e. NOT terrorists at all). They were all tortured.

In lieu of that fact, it makes you look pretty stupid right now, doesn’t it! :@@: :@@: :@@:

But on the other hand it might have been a good idea to torture O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, and George Dub-ya Bush, huh? Then we would know "for a fact" that O.J. murdered his ex-wife, Jacko sexually abused little boys, Clinton was shoving Cuban cigars up Monica's "commo se jamma", and Bush deliberately lied about WMD's in Iraq.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Riddle me this ... would you let your kids attend a school where the administrators had no oversight?
Well said.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Where did you get the "left wing" comment from? Oh, sorry...I forgot you are almost incapable of discussing anything without reducing it to a conflict between the left and the right.

BRAVO! :banana:

Originally posted by Travh20
becasue thats what this board is all aobut, left and right, and I am kind of tired of being the guy who gets singled out when everyoen else does it too, and the left wigners like dop , guerilla and freethinker do it more then anyone.

Aww Trav, I single you out because I like you. :flowers:


anyway, I cant see how you can be for drugging someone and not for humiliating them or making them uncomfortable.

It seems to me to be the most humane, and accurate, way to get information from an unwilling source.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Well said.

Thank You -- but notice none of the pro-bush people are answering the question.

Actually the Amendment that was added by BushCo. completely undermines the entire bill. Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.

"But he(McCain) and other lawmakers are concerned that other additions to the Army's Field Manual on interrogations – specifically, 10 new classified pages – may open a back door to condoning practices that McCain is trying to prohibit."
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=8270

So Rummy can just add 10 classified pages condoning various torture techniques and anyone who engages in such now has a defense.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.


I don't have a problem with that, as long as the people giving the order get what's coming to them.

I agree with Lionel. We need to make it a crime to order the torture.

I have a few questions for anyone who advocates torture as a matter of policy.

Could you be the torturer? I mean, someone has to operate the thumbscrew.

Would you want your son/daughter to be the torturer?

Do we train people in these not-so-gentle arts of persuasion, and if so, how?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Thank You -- but notice none of the pro-bush people are answering the question.
Yes, I have noticed.