Obama at the National Archives, standing in front of the glass enclosed Constitution spoke of adhering to the rules and values written in our founding document. No torture regardless of the potential cost in lives and treasure. Eroding states rights, intrusion of the government into every aspect of our lives, promoting the liberal agenda, well the Constitution is a living document don't ya know!
Posted by warrenpeterson at May 21, 2009 03:55 PM | Email ThisWhat part of the argument don't you choose to understand?
To Obama, while praising and defending the Constitution, his actions demonstrate that it is nothing but an obstacle to be ignored or reinterpreted. We know it. He knows we know it. And he knows his followers are incapable of understanding the assault while he blows his very eloquent smoke.
Posted by: Reality on May 21, 2009 04:37 PMCan you point us to the exact Obama quote where he mentions "torture" being conducted?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 07:01 PMNo torture regardless of the potential cost in lives and treasure.
Care to comment on where in the Constitution Warren thinks torture can be found?
Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2009 07:38 PMNooo. I'll say this slowly. It is the left that has defined enhanced interrogation as torture, including even Republicans that have caved into the pressures of the insane left. This is the same left that we didn't hear a peep out of as Clinton resorted to rendition, and the use of real torture by Egypt. But like every issue argued by the left, their viewpoint is colored, not by principle, but the political context in which it is argued, and the refusal to consider the full consequences of that position.
I think you'll find that American generation after generation, benefited from the discipline of the spanking, belt, ruler, etc. Yes, I doubt that you suffered such "torture" at the hands of your parents. But the fact is that suspected terrorists held by the US, captured in the combat zone and known to be involved in the execution or planning of horrific attacks against he US and our allies, are not uniformed soldiers. They do not represent a nation with boundaries. They do not, themselves, adhere to any convention of human rights or protection of the innocent, except a belief that murder and terror of men, women and children is promoted by their religious beliefs.
Now if you wish to argue that "civilization" is defined by providing 3 meals a day, clean clothes, and a warm bed to a murderer who has knowledge of a terrorist act that could kill 10,000 Americans, I would argue that your idea of "civilization" has been warped by an overly political, and vastly under-thought sense of human rights. What of the human rights of the 10,000 Americans that will be torn to bits, burned alive, killed in poisonous agony, etc.?
The line between torture and enhanced interrogation is clearly relative to the level of certainty that a captive has information that could prevent the brutal murder of innocent men, women and children. No one with such knowledge, or the ability and willingness to engage in such acts should ever be protected at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, and frankly, forfeits their inclusion in the human race with such despicable hatred and lack of conscience.
But go ahead and defend the rights they are not entitled to under our Constitution or the Geneva convention. And when we lose a city and thousands of Americans in an act that could have been avoided with a little enhanced interrogation, you go ahead and sleep at night. Except of course unless one of your family or friends is among the victims. Then you can try to argue that the rights of known planners of terrorist acts outweigh the necessity of techniques that can't even be discussed in comparison to the destruction of life they are prepared to inflict.
BTW - your arrogance shrouded in your obvious immaturity is laughable.
Posted by: Reality on May 21, 2009 07:42 PMI'll let Warren speak for himself. There was no torture committed on detainees to my, or anyone other commenter's here knowledge.
I hear alot of hand wringing about "waterboarding" techniques, but those same "torture" methods are conducted on a daily basis on U.S. Troops and have been for the past 35-40 years that I'm aware of.
Now, if a liberal here that considers waterboarding torture could provide a copy of a written letter, e-mail, etc that they've sent to their congressman, Senator or the president (present or past) decrying the use of this "barbaric" method on our U.S. armed services personnel, I'd love to see it. That can be posted on the public blog here at SP. Once that is done, perhaps we can re-engage whether this "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture. If it's good enough to use as a training tool on our service personnel, why would it not also be an effective tool in eliciting potential life saving information from a Jihadi terrorist(s).
Time to put up or shut up, libs. If it isn't torture when conducted on our troops, it certainly isn't torture when conducted on terrorists with information on a potential dirty bomb somewhere in L.A. or N.Y.C.
Likewise, there's a difference between affording people rights, and coddling them. I have no problem with taking folks suspected of a crime, trying them in a court, and sentencing them as necessary. Enacting punishment on them in the guise of "enhanced interrogation", however, is unconscionable.
And it's wrong whether it is done by Clinton or Bush or Obama. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
@9: Why exactly do you care if it's been "used on our troops"? It's irrelevant. In those cases, it's done with their consent. In the case of prisoners, it's not done with their consent, and it is assault, pure and simple.
--
Overall though, it's a cheat, and an ineffective one at that. We are better than this, and assuming that we need to sacrifice our ideals over some illusory "imminent threat" is foolish. Being strong and fair and just is not an easy thing, and it seems like conservatives are far too willing to slip into barbarism out of convenience.
Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2009 08:57 PMSo says the person who is the member of the political party that advocates ripping the unborn from the womb for the sake of convenience. After all why should a 16 year old be "punished" with a child?
Project much?
Posted by: Stitch on May 21, 2009 09:32 PMIn those cases, it's done with their consent.
Not surprisingly, you've obviously never been in the military. There is no "consent" in the military. There is "yes sir" and "no sir" and you don't hear alot of the latter.
In the case of prisoners, it's not done with their consent, and it is assault, pure and simple.
No, it's called enhanced interrogation. Now, where is your letter to your elected official Demokid? Will it be forthcoming or would you rather continue to weep for some international terrorists here on this blog instead?
sidebar: I've responded to your post on the public blog: John Bailo's "the republican minimalist" thread. Anyone caring to glimpse into the level of your twisted and convoluted reality is welcome to witness it there.
A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.
Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
You may check it out at below link.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html
Personally I think Iraq has more democracy than America under this regime.
Posted by: gs on May 21, 2009 10:26 PM
"Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl."
Hmm, was he really responsible or just saying what he thought would stop the water-boarding?
Posted by: BA on May 21, 2009 10:39 PMNow, if anyone were to actually read the thing and apply the limits to the federal government irrevocably encoded therein...
I think the Declaration of Independence is a more appropriate document for our day. It's much more relevant to today's government.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on May 21, 2009 10:49 PMIt's not about political polularity, but about the life and death of the population of America. War is war folks. I'm a little ole grandma. Someone better be ready to fight... and fight good... for my grandbabies.
Posted by: teapartygrandma on May 21, 2009 11:06 PMIt is embarrassing to see blog posts like this exist next to posts from a man like pudge -- who despite my disagreements with him clearly has a strong intellect. Sound Politics can and should do better.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 12:37 AM
@12.: No, the question is, why are you crying about it being used on dangerous terrorists while ignoring that the same technique is used in "training" for our U.S. Service personnel? I guess we can see which side you relate to best as a liberal since it didn't appear to bother you until it was done on detainees at Gitmo.
Whether it was used for training is completely irrelevant to this situation. It's the difference between knowing that it is a training exercise, and being subjected to it as a method of torture.
So why don't we waterboard prisoners in US prisons? I mean, they could know things, right?
As to whether I'm "crying" about it being used on dangerous terrorists... if these folks killed a friend or family member of mine, nothing could stop me from ripping them apart with my bare hands. (I mean, KSM's kinda big, but still.) We follow the rule of law, though, to keep these impulses from destroying society. And personally, do I think that they "deserve" it? Probably! But if we simply accept that they "deserve" punishment without a trial, what really does stop us from lapsing into barbarism? The promise that we'll only use torture against our enemies? Sorry... but for folks that are whining about how Obama is a "tyrant", you seem all to willing to embrace the hallmarks of a repressive government.
Not surprisingly, you've obviously never been in the military. There is no "consent" in the military. There is "yes sir" and "no sir" and you don't hear alot of the latter.
Not surprisingly, you have no idea about what "consent" means. If you join the military, you're giving consent. If you get captured and you're being tortured, you aren't. Again, assault. We provided jail time and death sentences for war criminals after World War II that did EXACTLY the same thing to US troops, but you blow off the debate? Sorry, but I prefer the rule of law over your revenge fantasy. Try them and let them rot in prison.
No, it's called enhanced interrogation. Now, where is your letter to your elected official Demokid? Will it be forthcoming or would you rather continue to weep for some international terrorists here on this blog instead?
If I had to send a letter to an elected official every time they did something that offended me in the slightest, I'd be writing them constantly. That's a moot point.
And "enhanced interrogation" is remarkably doublespeak! I hope whatever marketing genius came up with that got a raise... it really is a good distraction from the issues at hand.
I've responded to your post on the public blog: John Bailo's "the republican minimalist" thread. Anyone caring to glimpse into the level of your twisted and convoluted reality is welcome to witness it there.
And it just goes to show that you're completely in the dark about what discrimination and segregation actually means. I'm not surprised, though... conservatives are the first to whine about any perceived slight against a group that they identify with, and the first to wave off major inequities with groups that they don't. (Which makes it all the more amusing when a group like the ACLU rides to their defense...)
@13: Not True...Waterboarding has been effective. For you demo to say that it is ineffective is Wrong. Of course, not all those who have been waterboarded have broke and given what they know but, some have. One of the most effective use of waterboarding was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.
"Effective"? You mean, waterboarding someone 183 times is considered "effective"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6130165.ece
The sources that you referred to from a year and a half ago suggested that he broke after being waterboarded ONCE. The truth was that it was done, on average, more than once per day. How exactly is that not torture? Did they just do it 182 extra times for sport? Why exactly would other techniques have been ineffective? And why would the CIA lie about this?
A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.
Which has since been debunked, even if it's hard to believe in the first place.
Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
And this wouldn't have been provided without waterboarding? Really?
You may check it out at below link.
You may want to get more up-to-date sources.
@15: Hmm, was he really responsible or just saying what he thought would stop the water-boarding?
To paraphrase what Jesse Ventura said, after 183 times, you could get this fellow to confess to the Tate murders.
@16: Yep, he "supports" the constitution since it binds the people to his government. It is the farce he uses to convince people that rebellion is not OK against his despotic regime of terror.
Make up your damn mind. I mean, it's getting tiring. He's a despot! He's weak! He's taking our rights away! He's not taking enough rights away! Sheesh. Are all conservatives this schizoid?
Now, if anyone were to actually read the thing and apply the limits to the federal government irrevocably encoded therein...
Which, as usual, ignores the Madison-Hamilton conflict that's been raging since the country was founded. How typical that conservatives automatically believe that their reading of the Constitution is automatically the correct one because THEY think it's right... guess this hasn't changed in over two centuries, and probably never will.
I think the Declaration of Independence is a more appropriate document for our day. It's much more relevant to today's government.
The hyperbole! It hurts! I'm having a hard time figuring out when it DIDN'T apply, or why you would assume that relatively minor changes in government are equated with the apocalypse.
@17: Good point...BA. Waterboarding could have upset him to the point he would admit to anything. However, the CIA works with intelligence from various sources with the ability to crosscheck, confirming or not confirming. Also, he subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States. I'm sure following up on specific information on the ongoing plots of who, what and where gave validity to the information provided. Still, I feel some of his confessions may be lacking in Truth.
But again, you haven't addressed the question of whether other techniques would have been just as effective, if not moreso. If you can't answer that question, you're left with a frightening question: do people support this as a method of revenge, and not as a means of gathering intelligence?
@18: It's not about political polularity, but about the life and death of the population of America. War is war folks. I'm a little ole grandma. Someone better be ready to fight... and fight good... for my grandbabies.
There's a difference, though, between fighting and selling out our principles. We can do one without the other. We're better than that.
@19: Agreed. Weak.
pulling out fingernails
cutting off fingers
gouging out eyeballs
electroshock to genitals
limb amputations
whippings
air bubbles into the blood stream
enough of this pansy bullshit to appease the left.
Posted by: Crusader on May 22, 2009 02:12 AMCan we stop pretending that interogating a prisoner is torture?
Posted by: Don Ward on May 22, 2009 03:38 AMCan we stop pretending that interogating the war criminals being interred at Gitmo is torture?
Posted by: Don Ward on May 22, 2009 03:59 AMIf you join the military, you're giving consent. If you get captured and you're being tortured, you aren't.
By that convoluted logic, you're implication is that the detainees are "unwillingly tortured" and the service personnel that are "willingly torutured" are sado-masochists. Thanks for clearing your position up.
We provided jail time and death sentences for war criminals after World War II that did EXACTLY the same thing to US troops, but you blow off the debate?
There is no debate, just a weak attempt by liberals at continuing with calling "waterboarding" torture even though it's done daily on U.S. Citizens. Doesn't pass the laugh test.
@24: If they had information that some international terrorist group was planning to set off a potential dirty bomb somewhere in America ready to go off, we should and would. If you think Obama's naive world of velvet love for terrorists would prevent this from happening, you're living in a dream world. As the saying goes, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission". Patriots tasked with the real world protection of our country would understand this and use those tools available to protect you and your family from a weapon of mass destruction.
First, if you had a committed terrorist that knew that a bomb was just about to go off, would you really expect that they would break easily under torture and just hand you information? Why exactly wouldn't they delay or stall or resist for long enough for their nasty plans to happen? Seems like it would make torture LESS effective, not more.
Second, why make it legal? If it is, as you describe, "easier to ask forgiveness", the situation is dire, and these people are "American patriots", why not have them pull their magical Jack Bauer stunt, improbably get their information, and then get tried and convicted for their assault? What is a little jail time if you've done that criminal act to "save the day" in a one-off emergency circumstance like you describe?
Finally, explain how not waterboarding people comprises "velvet love". You're essentially confirming what I've been saying about this less being about information, and more about punishment without trial out of the need for revenge. As far as I can tell, throwing people in prison to rot after they've been convicted of a crime isn't out of any kind of love... but perhaps in your world, your loved ones know you care if you don't try to drown them?
We already established that this doesn't violate the "rule of law". Otherwise, we'd have been guilty of violating this rule for 35-40 years and done so on our very own armed service personnel. As for "destroying society", these tactics are employed to prevent exactly that scenario here in the U.S.
You haven't established a thing. Again, consent.
I'm still not sure if you liberals suffer from some type of 'stockholm syndrome' or if your hatred of Bush/Cheney runs just runs so deep that you'd actually discard rational common sense and side with 7th century beheaders who'd kill you and your family without thinking twice any chance they got.
Since when is tu quoque a reason for assault? And how exactly do you draw a comparison between "rational common sense" or "siding with 7th Century beheaders" and "suffocating prisoners for no real reason"? If you believe that this is justified simply because they are "7th Century beheaders", this is punishment without trial and you've proven my point.
By that convoluted logic, you're implication is that the detainees are "unwillingly tortured" and the service personnel that are "willingly torutured" are sado-masochists. Thanks for clearing your position up.
Just as I'm implying that karate students or people that are going in for surgery are "sado-masochists". In that, I'm not. (Especially the sadism part... where exactly did you get that?)
There is no debate, just a weak attempt by liberals at continuing with calling "waterboarding" torture even though it's done daily on U.S. Citizens. Doesn't pass the laugh test.
So let me get this straight... there's no debate about something that could be intentionally and unnecessarily breaking the law, pretty much out of a collective revenge fantasy? Simply because you assume that torture of enemies is justified in some way just because we hate them?
Posted by: demo kid on May 22, 2009 07:42 AMwhy is it torture now and it wasnt when it was happening?
why did comrade obama blame Bush 28 times in his pre-emptive Cheney speech,when at the same time calling for us to look forward...
why wont comrade Obama release the transcripts showing waterboarding worked?
Posted by: hellpig on May 22, 2009 08:07 AMTorture? I wouldn't know, we don't use torture in ehanced interrogations. KSM was instrumental in providing very useful information about the structure of Al Queda, so yes these interrogation techniques work. The facts bear this out according to Obama's own National Intelligence chief Adm. Blair.
Why exactly wouldn't they delay or stall or resist for long enough for their nasty plans to happen?
I'm sure he did for awhile, then broke under the pressure. Again, did the ends justify the means? Obama is standing in the way of answering that very question by not releasing the documents that Cheney is calling for him to release in order to add context to the documents released detailing the techniques used.
Second, why make it legal? If it is, as you describe, "easier to ask forgiveness", the situation is dire, and these people are "American patriots", why not have them pull their magical Jack Bauer stunt, improbably get their information, and then get tried and convicted for their assault?
Waterboarding isn't "assault". We've already established that above.
You're essentially confirming what I've been saying about this less being about information, and more about punishment without trial out of the need for revenge.
Read into it what you'd like. The fact is these interrogation techniques were used to save you and your family against a possible subsequent plot to follow the 9/11 attacks. You choose to be an armchair clairvoyant, but the reality is that we were completely in the dark as to how sophisticated this attack on our nation was and whether there were other cells in place to carry out further attacks.
As far as I can tell, throwing people in prison to rot after they've been convicted of a crime isn't out of any kind of love... but perhaps in your world, your loved ones know you care if you don't try to drown them?
You lost me on your meaning there, but emotional arguments sometimes devolve into senseless rambling.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 08:18 AMThey don't. They defend human rights. Even yours.
why is it torture now and it wasnt when it was happening?
Is always was, and always is.
why did comrade obama blame Bush 28 times in his pre-emptive Cheney speech,when at the same time calling for us to look forward...
Cheney "looking forward"? How exactly is "ignoring the past for one's own gain" "looking forward"?
why wont comrade Obama release the transcripts showing waterboarding worked?
For the same exact reason why they wouldn't release transcripts of any other highly-sensitive interrogations. But it's undisputed that waterboarding was used hundreds of times on three people, to the contrary of previous testimony. How precisely is that "working"?
@27: Torture? I wouldn't know, we don't use torture in ehanced interrogations. KSM was instrumental in providing very useful information about the structure of Al Queda, so yes these interrogation techniques work. The facts bear this out according to Obama's own National Intelligence chief Adm. Blair.
Changing the definition doesn't make it false. And Blair was using the same apologetic talking points that Cheney used: that torture is okay in some circumstances, pretty much when they decide it is. However, other sources, such as FBI agents interrogating the SAME subjects, have cast doubt on the idea that these techniques were successful enough to justify their use.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30721458/
If you accept that testimony to be true, then why else would the public support torture? Revenge is the only one I can come up with. Is revenge truly a way to build policy?
I'm sure he did for awhile, then broke under the pressure. Again, did the ends justify the means? Obama is standing in the way of answering that very question by not releasing the documents that Cheney is calling for him to release in order to add context to the documents released detailing the techniques used.
So let's see... releasing the nature of the torture threatens national security, but releasing the intelligence provided doesn't?
Waterboarding isn't "assault". We've already established that above.
You haven't established anything. And to be precise, I'm playing a little loose with definitions, as legally it is battery: contact against one's will. What exactly about suffocating someone isn't battery in your mind?
Read into it what you'd like. The fact is these interrogation techniques were used to save you and your family against a possible subsequent plot to follow the 9/11 attacks. You choose to be an armchair clairvoyant, but the reality is that we were completely in the dark as to how sophisticated this attack on our nation was and whether there were other cells in place to carry out further attacks.
And you prefer to be the "armchair clairvoyant" by assuming that NO other techniques would have been able to collect the same information. In circumstances like that, I prefer to default to respecting human rights: convict them and throw them in prison if they've committed a crime, interrogate them but don't pull out their fingernails, and don't create a system straight out of Pinochet's Chile just for the sake of convenience or revenge.
You lost me on your meaning there, but emotional arguments sometimes devolve into senseless rambling.
"Senseless rambling"? You're the one that called a refusal to torture "velvet love".
Posted by: demo kid on May 22, 2009 08:52 AMWho's changing the definition? Obama doesn't use the word "torture" in describing these techniques so therefore, he admits these techniques are not torture. His devotees could learn a lesson or two about this reality. Kind of leadership by example thing.
...[Admiral] Blair was using the same apologetic talking points that Cheney used: that torture is okay in some circumstances, pretty much when they decide it is.
Again, you're changing the definitions again to fit the emotional argument you're attempting to make. Admiral Blair is Obama's handpicked Intelligence chief. He declared the information gathered through interrogation techniques garnered "High value intelligence". You simply don't like the conclusion he arrived at for strictly partisan reasons.
However, other sources, such as FBI agents interrogating the SAME subjects, have cast doubt on the idea that these techniques were successful enough to justify their use.
Other sources are just that, but one piece in the larger puzzle. A puzzle that only Admiral Blair was privy to see and made his determination that yes, high value intelligence was obtained. What you are suggesting is that if someone never left their apartment building and had only seen the floor they were on, they could then determine that the apartment building only consisted of one floor, their floor. Meanwhile, the superintendent of the building is privy to all of the floors and is fully knowledgable that the building is actually 25 floors. I can't dumb it down any further for liberals to understand.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 09:12 AMFor those of his ilk this question - 'Whose side are you on?'
Posted by: dumbo kid needs a job on May 22, 2009 09:25 AMContinued sympathy for Jihadist killers and their 'rights' is torture.
Next.
Posted by: yaddacubed on May 22, 2009 11:14 AMlinking MSNBC as a fact LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
it all makes sense now ...
Posted by: hellpig on May 22, 2009 11:38 AMLet's see you know-it-alls put your families at the next ground zero.
Posted by: Jack Bauer on May 22, 2009 03:50 PMThe treaty on torture says in part:
Article 2
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
So if one wants to have torture to extract information from terrorists, then to make it legal, you have to have the USA denounce and withdraw from this treaty.
I don't think it says you can't withdraw, so anyone who is pro torture should be advocating that we withdraw.
Otherwise, torture is illegal.
Posted by: Torture fact check on May 22, 2009 04:59 PMthis suggests a way to make it legal. The USA could denounce and reject the torture convention, and then pass a law saying "Torture by the USA government is ilegal, unless the torturer is a public official who reasonably believes or in good faith believes the potential cost in lives or treasure makes it worth it, as compared to the potential cost of the torture. Any reasonable and good faith estimate of the cost and benefit is sufficient and courts will not second guess these decisions unless they are clearly wrong."
Then you could expand this to allow torture to solve kidnappings in progress, murder, forcing mobsters to confess, etc. One potential problem would still be the cruel and unusual punishments clause, but hopefully Scalia and Robers would ensure this does not stand in the way of torture whenever it is deemed to be a net plus by a government official acting in good faith.
Btw this expansion of government power would be somewhat inconsistent with notions of limited government, but that's another issue.
Posted by: Torture lawyer on May 22, 2009 05:12 PMThank GOD!!!! for the second amendment
Posted by: EagleScout on May 22, 2009 07:08 PMThe moral abyss displayed by the leftists in power will come back in spades.
"Unintended consequences cannot be dismissed"
Posted by: KDS on May 22, 2009 11:14 PM
