"We do not Torture", so don't make it illegal

[RickSp]

Bush: "We do not torture"

The United States will do what it takes to protect itself but "we do not torture," President Bush said on Monday in response to criticism of reported secret CIA prisons and the handling of terrorism suspects. Bush defended his administration's efforts to stop the U.S. Congress from imposing rules on the handling of terrorism suspects. He did not confirm or deny the existence of CIA secret prisons that The Washington Post disclosed last week and would not address demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to the suspects reportedly held at them. "We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice," Bush said at a news conference with Panamanian President Martin Torrijos. "We are gathering information about where the terrorists might be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law." Vice President Dick Cheney has been spearheading an effort on Capitol Hill to have the CIA exempt from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The exemption would cover the secret prisons that The Post said were located in several eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept. "We do not torture and therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it more possible to do our job," Bush said.

So the Bush administration argument is that it would be bad to ban torture which they don't do anyway, (but whatever you do don't ban it). Even though torture is already illegal under international treaties ratified by the US Senate, it would be very bad to prohibit the CIA from torturing people, which they don't do. Trust me.

Has insanity overtaken the entire Bush administration?

[bishop]

seriously.. if they "didn't do torture", then they shouldn't have a problem banning it - which as you mentioned, is already illegal.

bush just wants dictatorial powers, not much new there. but his arguments opposing the ban are so completely incoherent it isn't even funny.

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp So the Bush administration argument is that it would be bad to ban torture which they don't do anyway, (but whatever you do don't ban it). Even though torture is already illegal under international treaties ratified by the US Senate, it would be very bad to prohibit the CIA from torturing people, which they don't do.

Even the basic premise of Bush's argument is bad. even if we weren't torturing people (which I tend to doubt), it could still be illegal. Bush's argument is the usual one: "I'm right and everybody else should
think the same way that I do." Any contradictory evidence or reasoning is simply to be overlooked.
It's ludicrous, but expected.
These phony arguments have no purpose other than to justify further torture.
Ready yourself for the "We don't want to make those terrorists unhappy" argument any second now.

Grandpa h.

[thatoneguy00]

With all do respect sir, I am going to touch on this subject, throw my hat in the ring. Here is why. If,in my hometown, I knew of a man who I could get access to, that knew about an attack on my hometown the next morning that would possibly destroy my hometown, I would get a hold if him and extract whatever and all information out of him, by any means necessary. now does that mean torture? well ya if it comes to that. don't you think it would be worth it rather than wait around knowing something is going to happen. that thousands of lives are at stake. But ya don't want to hurt this guy, no, see the way the media potrays american miltary is a bunch of terrorists. What happen to support our troops, because as we sit here in front of our computers, our troops are all over the world. doing some sort of service, helping lots and lots of people. all that I am saying is that in order to extract information out of an insurgent, it might have to come to " BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" in order to protect the lives of others

[bishop]

that's fine and dandy, except that if you permit the usage of torture, you can expect our troops to torture lots of people who aren't necessarily involved. how can you tell the difference between someone who's hiding information versus someone who truly doesn't? you can't. people have been tortured to death at gitmo and elsewhere, and it's unlikely that they had any juicy info - especially the gitmo people who've been there for over 3 years now (surely whatever information they had become obsolete a long time ago).

and, of course, there is the fact that torture is ALREADY illegal. our ratification of the geneva conventions explicity outlaws torture. (gotta love how the administration can pick and choose which laws it feels like following though.)

[RickSp]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 What happen to support our troops, because as we sit here in front of our computers, our troops are all over the world. doing some sort of service, helping lots and lots of people. all that I am saying is that in order to extract information out of an insurgent, it might have to come to " BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" in order to protect the lives of others

One of the reasons that the US military has traditionally supported the Geneva Convention is that is protects US soldiers who may be captured. We give humane treatment and demand humane treatment. If we torture those who we hold prisoners, we should expect our soldiers to be tortured as well. Do you call that supporting our troops?

Your other argument is a ridiculous hypothetical. If you knew of a man who you knew had knowledge of an imminent attack, you would probably know enough to stop the attack even without torture. More likely, you would pull in someone who knew nothing at all, who you would torture to death without learning anything because there was nothing learn. How then do we differ from the terrorists?

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp One of the reasons that the US military has traditionally supported the Geneva Convention is that is protects US soldiers who may be captured. We give humane treatment and demand humane treatment.

This story may be of interest.

McCain Vows to Add Torture Ban to All Major Senate Bills:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...torture05.html
"WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush administration, supporters of a ban on torturing prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened Friday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law."

Grandpa h.

[ericsp23]

And why should we expect this hypothetical terrorist to tell us the truth? More likely he would lie to us so we would stop torturing him, and then we would waste time on a wild goose chase while we could be out finding potentially better leads through other means. A terrorist who is actively engaged in a strike is probably the least credible source of information even under the duress or torture.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ericsp23 And why should we expect this hypothetical terrorist to tell us the truth? More likely he would lie to us so we would stop torturing him, and then we would waste time on a wild goose chase while we could be out finding potentially better leads through other means.

But we're already chasing a bunch of elusive, wild geese. It doesn't matter so much to this administration. They like the hunt.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

I will venture to say that the next 6 presidential canidates put forward by both major parties are already pre-selected, current leaders in their parties.

Out of those 6, all will tote the line of protecting liberty and justice, while they further encroach on rights and constitutional limitations. Any advancement Bush can make towards acheiving those goals, since his eyes are already blackened in public opinion, will make the job of the next seated puppet much easier to handle in the press.

We are witnessing the biggest power grab ever attempted by a seated president SINCE Franklin D. Roosevelt, for the same reasons....... more socialist influx, more wealth redistribution, and a reduction of central government limitations to a tyrannical level.

[thatoneguy00]

I am not saying become a terrorist but if ya know that something is going to happen it would eat at you to get details so you could stop it. I am not implying terrorism, heck I am not even implying torture I am just stating that if you were in the position that I have stated, you owuld do what you could. If your family was in threat of something but you didn't know what, you would do whatever it took to stop anything from happening to your family.

[thatoneguy00]

I also agree with osborn. No other president has had his plate filled like this. With the 9-11 attacks then the war and lets not forget about the tsunami's and hurricanes and now the cia leak investigation, there is nothing that our president can do to make the media or anyone else say " hey I am glad he is president" because everyone else knows how to run this country supposedly, yet I have been to walmart, its packed, I have driven highways interstates and residential roads, people are driving, and people are still working. personally our economy,to me, is still going on its daily routine though isn't it? I commend our president and all supporters.

[ericsp23]

Well, if such an unlikely situation were ever to present itself, why would you let the law get in the way of doing what needs to be done? If you knew you could get reliable information from someone through torture (which, as I stated before, I doubt you could do, but for the sake of argument lets say you could) and you could save thousands of lives, don't you think someone would just say "screw it" and do it. If he succeeded he would be considered a hero and his punishment would likely be light. I'm not advocating that, I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't necessary to legalize torture for such an unlikely situation.
And remember, we're not just talking about a new law that says torture is okay. The ban on cruel and unusual punishment is one of the founding principles of American democracy and is part of the Bill of Rights. You would need a new amendment that cancels out one of the rights gauranteed in the Bill of Rights which has never been done in the 200 plus years since the Constitution became the law of the land.

[thatoneguy00]

That was very well put eric. I couldn't agree more. I would not let any law get in the way. But I don't know about you, but I am not over there able to see what goes on, it could be so heiness that would leave us to believe that maybe an "unlikely event" is in the works. I don't understand why any torturing would go on if something wasn't fueling it

[RickSp]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 That was very well put eric. I couldn't agree more. I would not let any law get in the way. But I don't know about you, but I am not over there able to see what goes on, it could be so heiness that would leave us to believe that maybe an "unlikely event" is in the works. I don't understand why any torturing would go on if something wasn't fueling it

It is very simple. Torture is un-American and ineffective but the Bush administration has as much as directed that torture be used on prisoners in Afhanistan and Iraq. The horrors of Abu Ghraib and Baghram were not initiated by a few renegade privates and non-coms. It was directed from above. McCain, as victim of torture in aNorth Vietnamese prison, is trying put a stop to it. Bush is resisting. The bastard should be impeached.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp Bush: "We do not torture" So the Bush administration argument is that it would be bad to ban torture which they don't do anyway, (but whatever you do don't ban it). Even though torture is already illegal under international treaties ratified by the US Senate, it would be very bad to prohibit the CIA from torturing people, which they don't do. Trust me. Has insanity overtaken the entire Bush administration?

"Break out the old magneto boys, we're going to zap this guy's testicles just as soon as we can get him in the soundproof rubber room. Everytime they cut off the heads of us "infidels", we'll wind up this magneto so tight these guys will resemble a pulsating neon sign just shining information all over us like those billboards down on Times Square. We'll be dropping the ball now. Oh, by the way, close those shutters will ya Corporal? And the rest of you boys better put on those Sunglasses, ya hear." .... "Yes sir, colonel." ZZZZIIIITTTTT Zzzzittt, ZZIITTT, ZZZZZIIIITTTTT

What a messed up situation :(