DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 12, 2008, 02:25:56 PM
-
....effective interrogation tactics? Not what they believe doesn't work, or is wrong to do, or whatever comment they wish to make aimed at the current administration.
What are effective interrogation tactics a liberal Democrat would advocate to pull out vital information, such as pending terrorist attack or locations to terrorist cells, that otherwise would not be forthcoming
-
Titty twisters are the best they have.
After that, Rosie O'Donnel singing homosexual love songs is about it.
-
There is a new book out, as I'm sure you know, where an interrogator (using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander) spells out how torture is worthless for getting valid info. He details how he and his team formed trustful relationships with detainees and it led to the capture of Zarquawi. (I think that's who it was.)
Torture only works on "24", sirs.
-
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools??
This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?
-
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools??
This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?
That all sort of blows your mind, doesn't it? That people talking to the netherworldly horrors that you have envisioned as "terrorists" could be talked into giving up their info.
It's true though and it works.
If your neighbor is playing loud music at night when you have to be at work at 6 am, screaming out the window at them only makes them turn it up louder. Going over as you see them coming and going in the next couple of days and mentioning that you have to be at work at 6am and that music sure is loud and you'd appreciate it if some arrangement could be made so they can listen to their music and you could get your beauty z's is much better and gets results 100 times faster.
-
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools?? This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?
That all sort of blows your mind, doesn't it? That people talking to the netherworldly horrors that you have envisioned as "terrorists" could be talked into giving up their info. It's true though and it works.
Where?.....when?.....how long?? You saying it, and it happening in some form of definative time neceesary for the info to be beneficial, are 2 entirely different scenarios.
If your neighbor is playing loud music at night when you have to be at work at 6 am, ....
Ridiculous comparison, since my neighbor isn't a terrorist, nor do I want information from him. If I want him to stop, I ask him to stop, then I call the police if he doesn't. Can you get back on topic, please?
You claim that we need to form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools. This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time. Is that what you're claiming? And that would be based on.................?
-
so.......your answer to my question is........... ???.................form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools?? This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time, right?
That all sort of blows your mind, doesn't it? That people talking to the netherworldly horrors that you have envisioned as "terrorists" could be talked into giving up their info. It's true though and it works.
Where?.....when?.....how long?? You saying it, and it happening in some form of definative time neceesary for the info to be beneficial, are 2 entirely different scenarios.
If your neighbor is playing loud music at night when you have to be at work at 6 am, ....
Ridiculous comparison, since my neighbor isn't a terrorist, nor do I want information from him. If I want him to stop, I ask him to stop, then I call the police if he doesn't. Can you get back on topic, please?
You claim that we need to form trustful relationships with some terrorists that were caught killing American soldiers or blowing up schools. This is done, how again?
And the hypothetical terrorist attack that's going to hit us in 3 weeks, this "buidling of a trustful relationship" will be up and running in that matter of time. Is that what you're claiming? And that would be based on.................?
Who are you going to believe? Your own cartoonish, 24-inspired world of hateful people who will kill you no matter what or interrogators who do it day in/day out and GET RESULTS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander)
Try using your head for something other than a hat rack.
-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97818033 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97818033)
He is interesting.
And his effectiveness ought to be looked into.
-
Who are you going to believe? Your own cartoonish, 24-inspired world of hateful people who will kill you no matter what or interrogators who do it day in/day out and GET RESULTS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander)
Try using your head for something other than a hat rack.
Couldn't answer the question, could ya. And knute-lite insult to boot. Gotta love the consistency at least
-
Who are you going to believe? Your own cartoonish, 24-inspired world of hateful people who will kill you no matter what or interrogators who do it day in/day out and GET RESULTS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Alexander)
Try using your head for something other than a hat rack.
Couldn't answer the question, could ya. And knute-lite insult to boot. Gotta love the consistency at least
Didn't check the link at all, did you? How about Plane's link? Anything? Beuller? Beuller?
-
SIRS.....it's an "either or or" to them.
I did not see you say you were opposed to the "nice approach".
Sure the "nice approach" will work sometimes, just like the "tough approach" will work sometimes.
If the "nice pals-ey" way works fine.....but if it doesn't....then what?
Do you leave other tools on the table when anthrax is about to be spread on Brass's child?
Hell I know I wouldn't.....After the nice stuff....I'd move on to every tool available.
they only want to talk about the "nice approach" success & leave off all the times "nice" fails.
I know if I was at war and someone was using the tough approach with me there would be a point
where I could "spill the beans".....Brass can come up with as many books saying that I wouldn't
"spill the beans"......but reality speaks otherwise......I would if it got bad enough....and thats the point!
-
Couldn't answer the question, could ya. And knute-lite insult to boot. Gotta love the consistency at least
Didn't check the link at all, did you? How about Plane's link? Anything? Beuller? Beuller?
Yea, I checked the link. Care to provide any of the specifics I asked? Buellor? Buellor? It's kinda like Tee pointing to some Vanity Fair Article as some supposed answer to a specific question. ::)
-
>>Torture only works on "24", sirs.<<
This is not true. I don't recall the bastards name ( looked like he was part ape, all hairy) but he was captured, water boarded, and he sang like a bird. Of course water boarding would be useless now. The democrats told the terrorists is was harmless.
-
"This is not true. I don't recall the bastards name ( looked like he was part ape, all hairy)
but he was captured, water boarded, and he sang like a bird. Of course water boarding would
be useless now. The democrats told the terrorists is was harmless.
that would be none other than "Kuh-Leed Shake Muhammed"
waterboarded until he spilled the beans
now he needs the gas chamber!
(http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ksmohammed.jpg)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
-
I don't feel like a purist on this subject, the best result is what I want to hear about .
Matthew Alexander is claiming to get good results.
So , if the results are good enough and the price paid is smaller , his methods might be preferred by all concerned.
-
Plane...of course "nice tactics" are preferred
sure that should be attempted first
sure they work in some cases
but what if they dont work?
in the 4th quarter...do you not use all the tools in the toolbox?
if you know Chicago is about to get hit with anthrax
you just throw up your arms after "nice" doesn't work and not waterboard?
-
Plane...of course "nice tactics" are preferred
sure that should be attempted first
sure they work in some cases
but what if they dont work?
in the 4th quarter...do you not use all the tools in the toolbox?
if you know Chicago is about to get hit with anthrax
you just throw up your arms after "nice" doesn't work and not waterboard?
Lets prefer what works better overall.
Being nice when it is time to be nice and mean when it is time to be mean.
If nice is more effective , it isn't time to be mean.
-
I wonder how many here have seen the results of torture? How many here have seen an enemy soldier come out of an interrogation with his head swollen to the size of a soccer ball, and then die an hour later?
I wonder how many here know soldiers who have had to live with being involved in an interrogation session that got out of hand? How many here know soldiers who are still haunted by this sort of thing 43 years after the fact?
I wonder how many of you here know what being "mean" durring a Q&A with the enemy is really all about?
I wonder if any of you had actualy seen this kind of thing up close and personal you'd still be so gung-ho about it?
Leave it to the spooks. Never allow soldiers to get involved in any questionable interrogation techniques. Always hope your President speaks out against it, strongly. Always hope you never have a President like GW Bush again.
-
Excellent post, BSB. A little whiff of reality for our torture enthusiasts, some of whom appear to be sorely in need of it. Torture’s a tactic - - like bullying or seduction, albeit the most reprehensible tactic available. Like any tactic, sometimes it works, sometimes not. The issue of torture isn’t really whether it “works” or not, any more than the issue of crime is whether it pays or not.
I’ve followed this thread with interest and it seems the best argument that the pro-torture side can muster is the old “ends justify the means” stuff - - the “terrorist” outrage narrowly averted by the timely application of the blowtorch to the soles of some poor bugger’s feet.
The argument is usually embellished by (a) magnifying the horror of the “catastrophe” to be averted and/or (b) demonizing the poor bugger whose soles are being blowtorched.
Consider that:
1. There is no historical record of any major catastrophe having been averted by information gained from torture;
2. Among the duly demonized torture victims there would have to be a broad spectrum of evil or culpability, from the guy holding up Daniel Pearl’s severed head to the sympathizer who let a couple of fugitives hole up on his dad’s farm for a couple of days;
3. Many torture victims, whether good guys or bad guys, just don’t have the information to give to their torturers, whether they want to or not;
4. Some torture victims will take their secrets through torture to the grave, or better yet, produce misleading information that when acted upon will actually damage the torturers’ cause;
5. Some unknown percentage of torture victims are just innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, often “sold” to the Americans because of personal feuds between neighbours or named by other torture victims in sheer desperation.
Of course, despite all of the above, torture can work in breaking up or at least temporarily disrupting Resistance networks, plots, underground movements, etc. It’s not totally useless. Just ask any former Gestapo agent.
In the end, torture is the measure of the man and the nation. One either practices torture or does not. In either case, enemies will still strike, catastrophes will still occur. The difference that torture will make is noted only in the good name of the individual or the nation. The individual torturers, of course, as they have since time immemorial, will continue to hide their faces and deny their deeds. No welcome-home parades for them, unless the day comes when the nation is willing to honour anonymous men in black masks riding up Main Street in convertibles, waving their cattle prods at the cheering throngs. Nations don’t have that luxury - - they initially deny, then blame it all on “a few bad apples,” and when finally forced to admit what they have done, resort to the kinds of justification that we’ve seen in this thread, perhaps a little less hysterically - - but no amount of justification changes anything, the stain is permanent, the moral rot irreversible.
Torture as a tactic is a mark of desperation and worse yet, it’s the mark of a loser. Regimes that torture earn the revulsion of mankind, at least the decent portion of mankind, those that know right from wrong, and in the end - - they fail as Hitler and Mussolini failed, not because torture didn’t work but because their evil was demonstrated unambiguously for the entire world (including their own citizens) to see. Nothing can save them.
I’m more than happy to note that for the U.S.A., the writing is already on the wall, the collapse already underway. They deserve it.
-
>>Excellent post, BSB. A little whiff of reality for our torture enthusiasts, some of whom appear to be sorely in need of it.<<
Give it your best shot dipshit.
-
I wonder how many here have seen the results of torture? How many here have seen an enemy soldier come out of an interrogation with his head swollen to the size of a soccer ball, and then die an hour later?
I wonder how many here know soldiers who have had to live with being involved in an interrogation session that got out of hand? How many here know soldiers who are still haunted by this sort of thing 43 years after the fact?
I wonder how many of you here know what being "mean" durring a Q&A with the enemy is really all about?
I wonder if any of you had actualy seen this kind of thing up close and personal you'd still be so gung-ho about it?
Leave it to the spooks. Never allow soldiers to get involved in any questionable interrogation techniques. Always hope your President speaks out against it, strongly. Always hope you never have a President like GW Bush again.
I am not a first hand witness , and I asm glad that torture is rare enough that we can discuss the controversy withought getting some.
Are you really thinking carefully to accuse GWB this way?
If you are a witness to such an incident , who was president when you witnessed it?
To beat someone to the point of permanant injury or fatal injury is precicely what President Bush and Vice President Cheny ruled against, under this administration a few guys caught doing that sort of thing have been locked up.
It was very likely less risky to torture a prisoner when FDR ,Eisenhour or Kennedy or Nixon were President , as far as I know , these presidents didn't produce a list of prohibited practices as Bush did.
Carter attempted to institute a zero tolerance policy and have no torture at all, I don't think he was as effective in his total restriction as Bush was with his partial one . I don't recall how many persons ever got proscicuted for such infractions while Carter was President.
Haveing no proscicutions for Prostitution would convince no one that the practice was not takeing place , but with Torture out of sight has really ment out of mind.
-
Carter attempted to institute a zero tolerance policy and have no torture at all, I don't think he was as effective in his total restriction as Bush was with his partial one . I don't recall how many persons ever got proscicuted for such infractions while Carter was President.
================================
There were no wars during Carter's term, unless you count the Desert One rescue plan.
If there was no torture during Carter's term, then it stands to reason that there were no prosecutions for it, either.
-
Carter attempted to institute a zero tolerance policy and have no torture at all, I don't think he was as effective in his total restriction as Bush was with his partial one . I don't recall how many persons ever got prosecuted for such infractions while Carter was President.
================================
There were no wars during Carter's term, unless you count the Desert One rescue plan.
If there was no torture during Carter's term, then it stands to reason that there were no prosecutions for it, either.
How then are there prosecutions during the Bush administration?
How do you know thatthere were no torture incidents? What was Carter trying to forbid?
-
How do you know thatthere were no torture incidents? What was Carter trying to forbid?
Apparently, Carter was not only trying to prevent torture, but also succeeded.
If you know of any incidents in his administrations, say so.
Innocent until proven guilty is the usual standard
-
How do you know thatthere were no torture incidents? What was Carter trying to forbid?
Apparently, Carter was not only trying to prevent torture, but also succeeded.
If you know of any incidents in his administrations, say so.
Innocent until proven guilty is the usual standard
I am quite suspicious of this.
It is like the homeless problem , very serious the very day a Republican is elected , disapears as soon as a Democrat is elected.
The CIA probly has a bigger problem with takeing prisoners than the ordinary military , the CIA is constantly breaking the law as a part of its business, if it has a prisoner does it have a standard of care?
BsB apparently knows of a case that certainly occured before Bush was elected , so what did Bush ever do but draw a limit ? This far , no further.
What do we know of the previous limit? This is not a subject that is uniformly well known , subject to bright light and transparency. If Bush set a new limit , what was the situation before the limit was set?
-
Bush set a new limit , what was the situation before the limit was set?
The limit was in an Amry manual. Rumsfeld changed the limit.
Again, I do not think that torture was ever authorized by Carter.
After the Church hearings in the late 1970's, torture was outlawed.
Rumsfeld and Cheney publicly stated that they were setting newer, harsher limits. This was followed by a lot of debate about how this was unworthy of the US, the military and the CIA.
-
Bush set a new limit , what was the situation before the limit was set?
The limit was in an Amry manual. Rumsfeld changed the limit.
Again, I do not think that torture was ever authorized by Carter.
After the Church hearings in the late 1970's, torture was outlawed.
Rumsfeld and Cheney publicly stated that they were setting newer, harsher limits. This was followed by a lot of debate about how this was unworthy of the US, the military and the CIA.
Who said the new limit was harsher than the previous ?
I thought the CIA presented a list of things they could do and Bush and Cheny crossed a lot off of the list.
Was that a wish list , or a list of experiences?
-
Who said the new limit was harsher than the previous ?
Rumsfeld, for one, announced this. Publicly, too.
They have been debating this for years.
After Abu Graib, they showed a memo from Rumsfeld requesting an even greater degree of brutality than that which had been approved. This has all been published extensively.
-
Plane, XO anawered your questions nicely. However, to reiterate, no one in LBJ's administration went around waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture like those in the Bush administration did. Most of what went on at Abu Graib was sanctioned by Bush's Secratery of Defense. What I witnessed, after the fact, in Vietnam was not sanctioned by McNamara, and the one American involved in that interrogation/beating went to prison.
So, am I thinking clearly about Bush? I believe I am. The question is, how clearly was he thinking? I suspect not very.
-
Plane, XO anawered your questions nicely. However, to reiterate, no one in LBJ's administration went around waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture like those in the Bush administration did. Most of what went on at Abu Graib was sanctioned by Bush's Secratery of Defense. What I witnessed, after the fact, in Vietnam was not sanctioned by McNamara, and the one American involved in that interrogation/beating went to prison.
So, am I thinking clearly about Bush? I believe I am. The question is, how clearly was he thinking? I suspect not very.
I don't think that " waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture " is a good description of what happened , nor were the Abu Graib incidents unpunished.
What Bush actually did was set some limits.
-
I don't think that " waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture " is a good description of what happened , nor were the Abu Graib incidents unpunished.
What Bush actually did was set some limits.
=============================================
When they first invaded Afghanistan, Rumsfeld and Cheney both extolled how torture was the way to go. The "American Taliban" kid was trussed up on a stretcher and stuffed in a shipping container in the hot sun for over a day, and we were told that he deserved this treatment and that it was time for the USA to stop being Mr Nice Guy (when were we ever Mr Nice Guy?)
All the people at Abu Graib who were punished were underlings. The woman general in charge was a scapegoat and had nothing to do with the torture.
Bush did NOT set limits. He just started spewing crap about how the US does not torture at the same time they were waterboarding and doing all sorts of evil crap to their victims.
-
Yet, with all these responses, to this particular thread, only 1 liberal actually tried to answer the question posed, and even that was to go look at a link. Imagine that
-
The question is what do progressives think should be done rather than torture?
The answer is that torture is not necessary to extract information. It just takes intelligence.
Sort of like getting a job and saving your money vs. buying a pistol and knocking over liquor stores.
No amount of words would ever convince you of the truth, sirs, because you are just warped and on some sort of ego trip.
-
So, Xo answers the question by ducking it. Smart, if not transparent move there, Xo. At least Brass took a crack at it
-
Brass actually did answer your question.
Apart from torture, investigators proceed by skillful interrogation, which includes deception, promises, inducements, trickery, ingratiation, planted informants, intercepts, relationship-building, etc.
How do you think police get information in domestic criminal cases when they aren't allowed to torture anyone?
-
Brass actually did answer your question.
To a point, yea. He pulled a Tee, and said go look at this link. As weak as it was, still better than ducking the question
Apart from torture, investigators proceed by skillful interrogation, which includes deception, promises, inducements, trickery, ingratiation, planted informants, intercepts, relationship-building, etc.
And no one that i'm aware of is denouncing anything above. The point being, that when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take?
Perhaps we should add that qualifier to the question
How do you think police get information in domestic criminal cases when they aren't allowed to torture anyone?
Because Criminal investigation is far different than waging war. Crimnals have constitutionally protected rights, foreign combants in war do not. And FYI, the "extent" of torture we're really talking about is likely waterboarding. No one that I'm aware, are we dismembering bodies, burning skin off prisoners, cutting ears off, ACTUAL acts of torture like that
-
Torture:
Hey, are you Al Qaeda?
No?
Duh, ((((((smack)))))
You Al Qaeda now?
-
<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take? >>
That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post. There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast.
The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied. I would say no. Better to suffer the surprise attack and its casualties and plunge back into the fight afterwards than to compromise the moral values that our society lived by, even in the darkest days of WWII.
It seems from the rest of your post that you're not all bad after all, that you would probably OK waterboarding but not blowtorching, even to root out the details of an impending attack. Well, without being too condescending about it, I have to say that that is evidence of some small degree of enlightenment.
I think the bottom line is the Golden Rule - - if you think it's OK for an enemy to waterboard your team, then it's OK to waterboard theirs. I can't think offhand of too many people who wouldn't condemn the waterboarding of Americans, in fact I believe that after the war some Japs went to prison for exactly that crime, as well they should have, so I think it's kind of hypocritical for Americans now to suddenly discover that it's an OK thing to do.
-
Sometimes people conflate humane treatment issues with politics.
For example I might go along with a universal ban against torture.
I might not go along with a call for a universal ban and a war crimes trial for Bush, Clinton and Obama.
The water gets muddied with approaches like this.
Keep it clear and you might get what you want.
-
<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take? >>
That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post. There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast.
Glad we have some meeting of the minds
The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied. I would say no.
I would say yes, though obviously with the disclaimer that "torture" as the left likes to toss around, frequently implies some brutal Al-Qeada like component, such as the tearing of flesh, dislocation of arms, crushing of kneecaps. I have NO problem with prisoners made to feel uncomfortable, their sleep patterns disturbed, being humiliated or made to wear funny underwear, the "threat" of a dog attacking them. Even made to think they are drowning, even though they aren't. Better to make the prisoner feel belittled, uncomfortable, and even scared, than to suffer a surprise attack that might take hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives.
And yes, I'm already on record as accepting AlQeada, and its offshoots, to waterboard American prisoners. If only they actually limited themselves to that, is the problem you have
-
<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take? >>
That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post. There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast.
The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied. I would say no. Better to suffer the surprise attack and its casualties and plunge back into the fight afterwards than to compromise the moral values that our society lived by, even in the darkest days of WWII.
It seems from the rest of your post that you're not all bad after all, that you would probably OK waterboarding but not blowtorching, even to root out the details of an impending attack. Well, without being too condescending about it, I have to say that that is evidence of some small degree of enlightenment.
I think the bottom line is the Golden Rule - - if you think it's OK for an enemy to waterboard your team, then it's OK to waterboard theirs. I can't think offhand of too many people who wouldn't condemn the waterboarding of Americans, in fact I believe that after the war some Japs went to prison for exactly that crime, as well they should have, so I think it's kind of hypocritical for Americans now to suddenly discover that it's an OK thing to do.
I like your thinking here.
So if the US actually uses Waterboarding on its own people , it becomes a more acceptable practice?
This might already be true.
-
Plane, XO anawered your questions nicely. However, to reiterate, no one in LBJ's administration went around waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture like those in the Bush administration did. Most of what went on at Abu Graib was sanctioned by Bush's Secratery of Defense. What I witnessed, after the fact, in Vietnam was not sanctioned by McNamara, and the one American involved in that interrogation/beating went to prison.
So, am I thinking clearly about Bush? I believe I am. The question is, how clearly was he thinking? I suspect not very.
But this "How many here have seen an enemy soldier come out of an interrogation with his head swollen to the size of a soccer ball, and then die an hour later?
"
Is on the list of things that President Bush expressly forbade ,how is LBJ innocent of incidents like this and Bush guilty when Bush did more to prevent such a thing than any p[revious President save Carter?
-
Excellent inquiry, Plane
-
Plane, the reason lawyers working for the Bush administration qualified the definition of acceptable, and unexceptable, torture, was to extend what they could get away with, not limit it. LBJ left things the way they were, which is what Bush would have done if he hadn't wanted to allow for more, not less, accceptable practices.
-
Plane, the reason lawyers working for the Bush administration qualified the definition of acceptable, and unexceptable, torture, was to extend what they could get away with, not limit it. LBJ left things the way they were, which is what Bush would have done if he hadn't wanted to allow for more, not less, accceptable practices.
Beaten to death is more not less.
The incident you mentioned is exactly the sort of thing that Bush wanted to prevent and would hve been exactly contrary to his orders.
So is it not the status quo that was more not less?
-
Ah Plane, LBJ didn't sanction beating captured VC, or in this case NVA, to death, and no one is saying Bush sanctioned beating anyone to death either. That doesn't stop it from happening in a combat zone where life is very cheap and emotions run very high.
-
Yet, correct me if I'm wrong B, Bush & his administration is getting lambasted and condemned for precisely that....the advocation, if not sanctioning, of such beatings. If not, then what & where's the problem?
-
<<I like your thinking here.
<<So if the US actually uses Waterboarding on its own people , it becomes a more acceptable practice?
<<This might already be true.>>
That's not what I said, plane. If the US is OK with its enemies waterboarding captured Americans for information, then logically they [the US] could find it legitimate to waterboard captured prisoners themselves.
Americans are NOT OK with their enemies waterboarding captured Americans, as evidenced by the fate of Jap war criminal torturers after the war, and it's therefore hypocritical of them to claim for themselves the right to do to captured enemies that which they imprisoned Japs for doing to captured Americans and Allied servicemen. Obviously, they considered it criminal when it was done to their own.
-
<<For example I might go along with a universal ban against torture.
<<I might not go along with a call for a universal ban and a war crimes trial for Bush, Clinton and Obama.>>
I know whatcha mean. I might go along with a ban on murder. I might not go alone with a call for a ban on murder and murder trials for Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. (just kidding - - I know what you are getting at)
FYI, BT, there already IS a universal ban on torture. It's the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("UNCAT") and it has been signed by the U.S.A. subject only to the reservation that the U.S.A. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee Against Torture to investigate accusations of widespread torture within the boundaries of the U.S.A.
-
FYI, BT, there already IS a universal ban on torture. It's the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("UNCAT") and it has been signed by the U.S.A. subject only to the reservation that the U.S.A. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee Against Torture to investigate accusations of widespread torture within the boundaries of the U.S.A.
What countries did not sign it?
-
I don't know. The list of signing countries, with dates and reservations, used to be posted on the UN docs site that contained the text of the treaties, but that page is gone now. I was gonna look up the dates of signing and ratification by the U.S.A. but now I can't. Or I probably could but it'd take up too much time finding an alternative site. I'm off to New York in an hour.
-
Not sure how helpful Wikipedia is but I'll give it a try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture)
-
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/53/plenary/a53-253.htm (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/53/plenary/a53-253.htm)
United Nations
A/53/253
General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL
17 August 1998
ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH
A/53/253
Original: English
General Assembly
Fifty-third session
Item 113 (a) of the provisional agenda*
Human rights questions: implementation of
human rights instruments
* A/53/150.
Status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Report of the Secretary-General
1. The General Assembly, by its resolution 39/46 of 10
December 1984, adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment contained in the annex to that resolution, and
called upon all Governments to consider signing and
ratifying the Convention as a matter or priority.
2. The Convention was opened for signature in New
York on 4 February 1985. In accordance with article 27
thereof, the Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987,
on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the
Secretary-General of the twentieth instrument of ratification
or accession.
3. In its resolution 51/86 of 12 December 1996, the
General Assembly welcomed the report of the Committee
against Torture; 1/ urged all States that had not yet done so
to become parties to the Convention as a matter of priority;
invited all States ratifying or acceding to the Convention
and those States that were parties to the Convention and that
had not yet done so to consider joining the States parties
that had already made the declarations provided for in
articles 21 and 22 of the Convention and to consider the
possibility of withdrawing their reservations to articles 20;
urged States parties to comply strictly with their obligations
under the Convention, including their obligation to submit
reports in accordance with article 19 of the Convention, in
view of the high number of reports not submitted; stressed
the need for regular exchanges of views between the
Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on
Torture and other relevant United Nations mechanisms and
bodies, with a view to enhancing further their effectiveness
and cooperation on issues relating to torture, inter alia, by
improving their coordination; commended the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights/Centre for Human Rights of the Secretariat for the
support given to States in the preparation of national reports
to the Committee; urged States parties to take fully into
account the conclusions and recommendations made by the
Committee after its consideration of their reports; urged all
States parties to the Convention to notify the Secretary-General
of their acceptance of the amendments to articles
17 and 18 of the Convention as soon as possible; 2/ and
requested the Secretary-General to submit to the General
Assembly at its fifty-third session a report on the status of
the Convention.
4. The Commission on Human Rights, at its fifty-fourth
session, on 17 April 1998 adopted resolution 1998/38, in
which it called upon all Governments to implement fully the
prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; urged all Governments to promote
the speedy and full implementation of the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23)
and, in particular, of Part II, section B.5, relating to freedom
from torture, in which it is stated that States should abrogate
legislation leading to impunity for those responsible for
grave violations of human rights such as torture and
prosecute such violations, thereby providing a firm basis for
the rule of law; reminded Governments that corporal
punishment could amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment or even to torture; stressed in particular that all
allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment should be promptly and impartially
examined by the competent national authority, that those
who encouraged, ordered, tolerated or perpetrated such acts
must be held responsible and severely punished, including
the officials in charge of the place of detention where the
prohibited act was found to have taken place, and that
national legal systems should ensure that the victims of such
acts obtained redress and were awarded fair and adequate
compensation and received appropriate socio-medical
rehabilitation. The Commission also reminded all States that
prolonged incommunicado detention might facilitate the
perpetration of torture and could in itself constitute a form
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; stressed that
under article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment acts
of torture must be made an offence under domestic criminal
law and that acts of torture during armed conflict were
considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of
1949, with the perpetrators liable to prosecution and
punishment; emphasized the obligation of States parties
under article 10 of the Convention to ensure education and
training for personnel who might be involved in the custody,
interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any
form of arrest, detention or imprisonment, and called upon
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
in conformity with her mandate established in General
Assembly resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993, to
provide, at the request of Governments, advisory services
in that regard, as well as technical assistance in the
development, production and distribution of appropriate
teaching material for the purpose. The Commission stressed
in that context that States mush not punish such personnel
for not obeying orders to commit acts amounting to torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
5. As at 15 July 1998, the Convention had been ratified
or acceded to by 105 States. In addition, 13 States had
signed the Convention. The list of States that have signed,
ratified or acceded to the Convention, as well as the dates
of their signature, ratification or accession, is contained in
the annex to the present report.
6. As at the same date, 39 of the States parties to the
Convention, namely Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
the Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay,
Venezuela and Yugoslavia, had made the declarations
provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. In
addition, two States parties, namely, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States
of America, had made the declaration provided for in article
21 only, thus bringing the total number of declarations
under that article to 41. Under article 21, a State party to the
Convention may declare at any time that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State party
claims that another State party is not fulfilling its
obligations under the Convention. Under article 22, a State
party to the Convention may declare at any time that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals
subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a
violation by a State party of the provisions of the
Convention.
7. The provisions of articles 21 and 22 entered into force
on 26 June 1987 in accordance with paragraph 2 of article
21 and paragraph 8 of article 22.
8. The sixth meeting of the States parties to the
Convention was convened by the Secretary-General at the
United Nations Office at Geneva on 26 November 1997 to
elect five members of the Committee against Torture to
replace those whose terms of office were due to expire on
31 December 1997. As a result of the election, the
membership of the Committee for 1998 is as follows:
Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada)
Mr. Guibril Camara (Senegal)
Mr. Sayed Kassem El Masry (Egypt)
Mr. Alejandro Gonza'lez Poblete (Chile)
Mr. Andreas Mavromatis (Cyprus)
Mr. Anto'nio Silva Henriques Gaspar (Portugal)
Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
Mr. Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russian Federation)
Mr. Yu Mengjia (China)
Mr. Bostjan M. Zupancic (Slovenia)
9. The Committee against Torture held its seventeenth,
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth sessions at the United
Nations Office at Geneva from 11 to 22 November 1996,
from 29 April to 9 May 1997, from 10 to 21 November 1997
and from 4 to 22 May 1998, respectively. In accordance
with article 24 of the Convention, the Committee submitted
its annual reports, 3/ covering its activities at the sessions
referred to above, to the States parties and to the General
Assembly at its fifty-second and fifty-third sessions.
Notes
1/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session,
Supplement No. 44 (A/51/44).
2/ Adopted by the Conference of States Parties to the Convention
on 9 September 1992 in accordance with article 29, paragraph
1, of the Convention (CAT/SP/SR.4) and endorsed by the
General Assembly in its resolution 47/111 of 16 December
1992.
3/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-second
Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/52/44); ibid., Fifty-third
Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44).
Annex
List of States that have signed, ratified or acceded to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment as at 15 July 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification,
State Date of signature accession or succession
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan 4 February 1985 1 April 1987
Albania 11 May 1994 b/
Algeria a/ 26 November 1985 12 September 1989
Antigua and Barbuda 19 July 1993 b/
Argentina a/ 4 February 1985 24 September 1986
Armenia 13 September 1993 b/
Australia a/ 10 December 1985 8 August 1989
Austria a/ 14 March 1985 29 July 1987
Azerbaijan 16 August 1996 b/
Bahrain 6 March 1998 b/
Belarus 19 December 1985 13 March 1987
Belgium 4 February 1985
Belize 17 March 1986 b/
Benin 12 March 1992 b/
Bolivia 4 February 1985
Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 March 1992 c/
Brazil 23 September 1985 28 September 1989
Bulgaria a/ 10 June 1986 16 December 1986
Burundi 18 February 1993 b/
Cambodia 15 October 1992 b/
Cameroon 19 December 1986 b/
Canada a/ 23 August 1985 24 June 1987
Cape Verde 4 June 1992 b/
Chad 9 June 1995 b/
Chile 23 September 1987 30 September 1988
China 12 December 1986 4 October 1988
Colombia 10 April 1985 8 December 1987
Costa Rica 4 February 1985 11 November 1993
Co^te d'Ivoire 18 December 1995 b/
Croatia a/ 8 October 1991 c/
Cuba 27 January 1986 17 May 1995
Cyprus a/ 9 October 1985 18 July 1991
Czech Republic 1 January 1993 c/
Democratic Republic
of the Congo 18 March 1996 b/
Denmark a/ 4 February 1985 27 May 1987
Dominican Republic 4 February 1985
Ecuador a/ 4 February 1985 30 March 1988
Egypt 25 June 1986 b/
El Salvador 17 June 1996 b/
Estonia 21 October 1991 b/
Ethiopia 14 March 1994 b/
Finland a/ 4 February 1985 30 August 1989
France a/ 4 February 1985 18 February 1986
Gabon 21 January 1986
Gambia 23 October 1985
Georgia 26 October 1994 b/
Germany 13 October 1986 1 October 1990
Greece a/ 4 February 1985 6 October 1988
Guatemala 5 January 1990 b/
Guinea 30 May 1986 10 October 1989
Guyana 25 January 1988 19 May 1988
Honduras 5 December 1996 b/
Hungary a/ 28 November 1986 15 April 1987
Iceland a/ 4 February 1985 23 October 1996
India 14 October 1997
Indonesia 23 October 1985
Ireland 28 September 1992
Israel 22 October 1986 3 October 1991
Italy a/ 4 February 1985 12 January 1989
Jordan 13 November 1991 b/
Kenya 21 February 1997 b/
Kuwait 8 March 1996 b/
Kyrgyzstan 5 September 1997 b/
Latvia 14 April 1992 b/
Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya 16 May 1989 b/
Liechtenstein a/ 27 June 1985 2 November 1990
Lithuania 1 February 1996 b/
Luxembourg a/ 22 February 1985 29 September 1987
Malawi 11 June 1996 b/
Malta a/ 13 September 1990 b/
Mauritius 9 December 1992 b/
Mexico 18 March 1985 23 January 1986
Monaco a/ 6 December 1991 b/
Morocco 8 January 1986 21 June 1993
Namibia 28 November 1994 b/
Nepal 14 May 1991 b/
Netherlands a/ 4 February 1985 21 December 1988
New Zealand a/ 14 January 1986 10 December 1989
Nicaragua 15 April 1985
Nigeria 28 July 1988
Norway a/ 4 February 1985 9 July 1986
Panama 22 February 1985 24 August 1987
Paraguay 23 October 1989 12 March 1990
Peru 29 May 1985 7 July 1988
Philippines 18 June 1986 b/
Poland a/ 13 January 1986 26 July 1989
Portugal a/ 4 February 1985 9 February 1989
Republic of Korea 9 January 1995 b/
Republic of Moldova 28 November 1995 b/
Romania 18 December 1990 b/
Russian Federation a/ 10 December 1985 3 March 1987
Saudi Arabia 22 September 1997 b/
Senegal a/ 4 February 1985 21 August 1986
Seychelles 5 May 1992 b/
Sierra Leone 18 March 1985
Slovakia a/ 29 May 1993 c/
Slovenia a/ 16 July 1993 b/
Somalia 24 January 1990 b/
South Africa 29 January 1993
Spain a/ 4 February 1985 21 October 1987
Sri Lanka 3 January 1994 b/
Sudan 4 June 1986
Sweden a/ 4 February 1985 8 January 1986
Switzerland a/ 4 February 1985 2 December 1986
Tajikistan 11 January 1995 b/
The former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia 12 December 1994 c/
Togo a/ 25 March 1987 18 November 1987
Tunisia a/ 26 August 1987 23 September 1988
Turkey a/ 25 January 1988 2 August 1988
Uganda 3 November 1986 b/
Ukraine 27 February 1986 24 February 1987
United Kingdom of
Great Britain
and Northern
Ireland d/ 15 March 1985 8 December 1988
United States of
America d/ 18 April 1988 21 October 1994
Uruguay a/ 4 February 1985 24 October 1986
Uzbekistan 28 September 1995 b/
Venezuela a/ 15 February 1985 29 July 1991
Yemen 5 November 1991 b/
Yugoslavia a/ 18 April 1989 10 September 1991
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
a/ Made the declaration under articles 21 and 22 of the
Convention.
b/ Accession.
c/ Succession.
d/ Made the declaration under article 21 of the Convention.