It is foolish to assume one has some esoteric knowledge, informed expertise, and superior wisdom above those charged with balancing powers, forming policy, and those involved in instances where they may confront a terrorist admitting he has information about an eminent threat and unwilling to divulge the information. And, to say the US government does not care is foolish and proof the one that really does not care about the truth is the one speaking from a perspective of hate against the administration. Also you formed an argument on the basis of an instance that was not relevant, did not share similar characteristics, and applied it to a different set of curcumstances. It may only be borde...

It is foolish to assume one has some esoteric knowledge, informed expertise, and superior wisdom above those charged with balancing powers, forming policy, and those involved in instances where they may confront a terrorist admitting he has information about an eminent threat and unwilling to divulge the information. And, to say the US government does not care is foolish and proof the one that really does not care about the truth is the one speaking from a perspective of hate against the administration. Also you formed an argument on the basis of an instance that was not relevant, did not share similar characteristics, and applied it to a different set of curcumstances. It may only be borderline relativism ( that is why I prefaced with "relativist bent" ).

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I meant to say, the problem with that rationale is that people are generally known to say whatever they think you want to hear in order to make the torture stop. You can't tell without some kind of independent confirmation whether the information is any good or not. Lessens the utility of the information by quite a bit. If you have fifty people in front of you, you've tortured all of them, and all of them have given you contradictory pieces of intelligence, you're not all that much better off than you were before. I recently read about (and posted about ... forgive me for being repetitive) a guy who, during torture, started swearing that he himself was Osama bi...

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I meant to say, the problem with that rationale is that people are generally known to say whatever they think you want to hear in order to make the torture stop. You can't tell without some kind of independent confirmation whether the information is any good or not. Lessens the utility of the information by quite a bit. If you have fifty people in front of you, you've tortured all of them, and all of them have given you contradictory pieces of intelligence, you're not all that much better off than you were before. I recently read about (and posted about ... forgive me for being repetitive) a guy who, during torture, started swearing that he himself was Osama bin Laden because he thought that would convince his torturers to stop.

Willhelm, I understand your fundamental point, but the problem is, that's nonsense in terms of real-world situations. Situations don't come so neatly packaged. For your scenario to make sense, you'd have to have all the following information:
(1) Terrorist X has hidden a bomb someplace
(2) The bomb is set to go off in 24 hours (or whatever)
(3) You have terrorist X in custody
(4) The man you have in custody just happens to be the person who has all the information you need.
As far as the research I've been able to get hold of says, this has never happened. Failing that, the tendency seems to be just to torture everyone you can get your hands on and hope that some useful information...

Willhelm, I understand your fundamental point, but the problem is, that's nonsense in terms of real-world situations. Situations don't come so neatly packaged. For your scenario to make sense, you'd have to have all the following information:
(1) Terrorist X has hidden a bomb someplace
(2) The bomb is set to go off in 24 hours (or whatever)
(3) You have terrorist X in custody
(4) The man you have in custody just happens to be the person who has all the information you need.
As far as the research I've been able to get hold of says, this has never happened. Failing that, the tendency seems to be just to torture everyone you can get your hands on and hope that some useful information turns up. That's not effective. Like the bumper sticker says, it produces new enemies faster than we can kill them.

Clarity
(1) terrorist X is privy to information
(2) the threat is not specified by time and is not required to be. eminence is adequate.
(3) It could be any one of some untold number that have information.
(4) the man in custody has "information"

To limit terms to a scenario that is unrealistic does not do justice my scenario, further it is highly probable. in fact in the case of plot just foiled in England, these tactics worked. English laws are less stringent. You also do not have evidence to sugeest that my scenario has not already occured. On the other hand, as evidenced by the lack of terrorism on our soil, it is highly probable they have.

JK, that is shameless cop out and assumes our...

Clarity
(1) terrorist X is privy to information
(2) the threat is not specified by time and is not required to be. eminence is adequate.
(3) It could be any one of some untold number that have information.
(4) the man in custody has "information"

To limit terms to a scenario that is unrealistic does not do justice my scenario, further it is highly probable. in fact in the case of plot just foiled in England, these tactics worked. English laws are less stringent. You also do not have evidence to sugeest that my scenario has not already occured. On the other hand, as evidenced by the lack of terrorism on our soil, it is highly probable they have.

JK, that is shameless cop out and assumes our government has played no role in stopping further attacks here in the U.S.
You can either stick to your claim that there is no circumstance that waterboarding should be used to save American lives, or not. Which is it?

I almost hate to make a comment here. I have been a little disgruntled by the many blog posts on the subject of the recent torture bill changes.

First, I'd like to say that I saw / read nothing in the article clipped here pertaining to torture. What I did read had to do with war crimes. I suppose I'm missing something or there's an underlying satire / sarcasm in the sub-comment of the clip.

Next, the reason I've been disgruntled about the many blog posts about this issue on torture: A couple of weeks ago I read the actual wording of the torture bill (or whatever it's called) and it basically said that Bush (or President) had the final say on whether torture would be implemented.....

I almost hate to make a comment here. I have been a little disgruntled by the many blog posts on the subject of the recent torture bill changes.

First, I'd like to say that I saw / read nothing in the article clipped here pertaining to torture. What I did read had to do with war crimes. I suppose I'm missing something or there's an underlying satire / sarcasm in the sub-comment of the clip.

Next, the reason I've been disgruntled about the many blog posts about this issue on torture: A couple of weeks ago I read the actual wording of the torture bill (or whatever it's called) and it basically said that Bush (or President) had the final say on whether torture would be implemented... and form, period. If I can locate it again, I'll post it.

Will anyone abide by this rule? Are they going to call the Prez and say: "lookie here, we got this terrorist and we want to water board him. So what say ye?"

I'm guessing they'd have to call him or be tried for 'war crimes.' That's what I'm assuming this war crime clip is about.

So I get a little testy when I read about people's assumptions that this water boarding or any other torture will / would take place just because Bush is behind it... literally. But when Bush is gone and should a Dem be President, and receives the same phone call.... what's s/he gonna say? "ah... no. Just send Monica over to give him a BJ. Maybe that'll straighten him up." {cough}

I think we need to wake up. Personally, I feel it's an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What goes around comes around. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, what happened after that????

It is a double edged sword, putting it mildly. Highly debatable, it's true. But times are changing and this is our new reality. And so, if the protesters of the torture rules have an alternative suggestion for dealing with people that are hell bent on killing our families and given freedoms, please step forward and {cough} up a new plan.

bookchick49, of course the law deals with torture. Violation of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime according to the statute. The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture as well as degrading and inhuman treatment. And willhelm, this bizarre red herring about the Geneva Conventions being "written specifically for Civil Wars in language that could be applied more broadly" -- whatever you mean by that, and wherever you're getting that information -- is irrelevant, since the Conventions are now written into US law without excluding non-civil wars, and they prohibit torturing prisoners, pure and simple.

willhelm, the reason why I identified those four points is because that's the so-called "tick...

bookchick49, of course the law deals with torture. Violation of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime according to the statute. The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture as well as degrading and inhuman treatment. And willhelm, this bizarre red herring about the Geneva Conventions being "written specifically for Civil Wars in language that could be applied more broadly" -- whatever you mean by that, and wherever you're getting that information -- is irrelevant, since the Conventions are now written into US law without excluding non-civil wars, and they prohibit torturing prisoners, pure and simple.

willhelm, the reason why I identified those four points is because that's the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario most often cited by pro-torture folks like yourself. What you've done is just weakened your own case by suggesting that you could apply torture in all kinds of different scenarios where it wasn't clear that it could produce any useful information at all, assuming, indeed, that torture ever produces useful information, which hasn't ever been reliably established (do you have concrete evidence that it does? then please share). According to your criteria, it would be possible to apply torture in a situation like this one. Let's say a state trooper stops two Middle Eastern-looking men in a pickup truck about two miles away from a suburban nuclear power facility. They have a lot of peculiar pieces of metal and concrete and so forth in their truck. They don't seem to speak particularly good English and can't give a good explanation of what they're doing. According to your reasoning, torturing these two men would be justifiable, because they might have some information about some plot that might exist and might be a danger to Americans. (continued...)

This "eye for an eye" business assumes that everyone we have in custody is already guilty.

That is NOT where I was taking my statement Enbar. Maybe I didn't state it properly. I understand the Geneva Convention to protect POW's, civilians and more. I don't approve of torture in ways that harm and am outraged over the military that violated the rights of POW's at Guantanamo, etc. I do believe that there are ways to implement lines of questioning that don't inflict pain and suffering.

However, I'm geared, in my own mind, to believe that the reason the law had been amended, making the President (whoever that is or will be) responsible for the decisions in 'treatments'...

This "eye for an eye" business assumes that everyone we have in custody is already guilty.

That is NOT where I was taking my statement Enbar. Maybe I didn't state it properly. I understand the Geneva Convention to protect POW's, civilians and more. I don't approve of torture in ways that harm and am outraged over the military that violated the rights of POW's at Guantanamo, etc. I do believe that there are ways to implement lines of questioning that don't inflict pain and suffering.

However, I'm geared, in my own mind, to believe that the reason the law had been amended, making the President (whoever that is or will be) responsible for the decisions in 'treatments' since some in our own military could not follow responsibly. Sort of like a slap on the hands (in lighter terms).

When I said "an eye for an eye" and "remember what happened after Pearl Harbor..." I was stating that this is how I personally feel the governments operate. You bomb our country, we bomb yours and visa versa. We are NOT the only ones that are to blame for this type of behavior and it frustrates me that the U.S. is consistently put on display for it. Highly controversial. Just the way it is and it's unfortunate. Next... re your comment:

.. since the
Conventions are now written into US law without excluding non-civil
wars.

So the new reality is, in my scope of understanding, that we are in a new age and our govt saw fit to amend a US humanitarian law that takes control away from certain (military or authoritative) individuals during times of interrogation that could be detrimental to both the country, and any civilian's human rights. If what you say (above) is true, and you seriously feel that you or any innocent civilian is in harms way by this change, it appears to me that you have the rights of the Geneva Convention behind you. If you doubt that, then go read it. There are articles that protect the civilians of all countries regardless of which

I hardly believe that Bush would have signed a law or amendment that would have been in direct opposition of the Geneva Convention. To do so would put the U.S. outside the international pact.

Furthermore, {enter rant here} (oh boy here she goes)... having military in my family, I wholly support (and not afraid to admit it) the war on terror (which we are indeed involved in), and take pride in the efforts of our military, all of them, past and present. There's a few bad apples EVERYWHERE. Not just in the U.S. If you want to blame anyone for the changes in the amendment... look to those that caused it to be. Write to them in their prison cells and tell them of your disdain. I'm sure t...

I hardly believe that Bush would have signed a law or amendment that would have been in direct opposition of the Geneva Convention. To do so would put the U.S. outside the international pact.

Furthermore, {enter rant here} (oh boy here she goes)... having military in my family, I wholly support (and not afraid to admit it) the war on terror (which we are indeed involved in), and take pride in the efforts of our military, all of them, past and present. There's a few bad apples EVERYWHERE. Not just in the U.S. If you want to blame anyone for the changes in the amendment... look to those that caused it to be. Write to them in their prison cells and tell them of your disdain. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

I don't have anything to hide, do you? What reasons would you have to think that you could be in direct danger from this amendment? Have you thought about writing to the United Nations and filing a formal complaint against the U.S. for amending their constitutional rights? (now that's absurd). Have you written your congress(wo)man? What have you done to change your contempt?

If you can't stand the heat, .... you know what they say. But please, find a way to do it without bringing harm, mental or otherwise, to any persons. You wouldn't want to break the humanitarian law now, would you!

If the country I live in, chooses to make changes in its law that will protect its civilians in time of war, then so be it. What's good about this? The laws can be changed again. How? If you act instead of re-acting.

done ranting
ciao!

willhelm --

the person with information about killing thousands of people is more hideous.

The problem being that we don't know which of those hundreds or thousands of people we have locked up this person might be, so I guess we have to torture all of them ... right?

bookchick49 --

I hardly believe that Bush would have signed a law or amendment that would have been in direct opposition of the Geneva Convention. To do so would put the U.S. outside the international pact.

I hate to tell you this, but this is simply wrong. Our attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo in 2002 referring to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete," and the...

willhelm --

the person with information about killing thousands of people is more hideous.

The problem being that we don't know which of those hundreds or thousands of people we have locked up this person might be, so I guess we have to torture all of them ... right?

bookchick49 --

I hardly believe that Bush would have signed a law or amendment that would have been in direct opposition of the Geneva Convention. To do so would put the U.S. outside the international pact.

I hate to tell you this, but this is simply wrong. Our attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo in 2002 referring to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete," and the recommendations in that memo have since been written into official policy. The Conventions prohibit:

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture... outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment [and] the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples

In other words, no torture, and no military tribunals.
But, one might argue, these aren't POWs, they're unlawful combatants. Here's what the Conventions have to say on that point:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy [are prisoners of war under this Convention], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

What's a "competent tribunal"? Not military or executive fiat, that's for sure. (continued)

(continued from above)
I respect the contribution your military family members and the rest of your family have made towards our security, and I don't intend to impugn that. I don't think most of the people who critique these policies have anything against the military. In fact, many of the people standing up most publicly against the use of torture have been military themselves (e.g. Gen. Colin Powell). Military doctrine has always been that humane treatment of captives helped to protect our own troops, and you can find that documented in many many places going back to WWII. I think the problem is not in the ranks of the military but in the arrogant political posturing that's made people sa...

(continued from above)
I respect the contribution your military family members and the rest of your family have made towards our security, and I don't intend to impugn that. I don't think most of the people who critique these policies have anything against the military. In fact, many of the people standing up most publicly against the use of torture have been military themselves (e.g. Gen. Colin Powell). Military doctrine has always been that humane treatment of captives helped to protect our own troops, and you can find that documented in many many places going back to WWII. I think the problem is not in the ranks of the military but in the arrogant political posturing that's made people sacrifice intellligent policymaking in favor of just looking tough. No one wants to appear soft on terrorism, so no one has the nerve to ask real questions about what torture actually accomplishes or what these policies are likely to bring about in the long term.

And as far as your personal remarks about me and my reaction, well, yes, of course I've written my elected representatives, written letters to the editor, etc. Do I think I'm personally in danger from these policies? Do I have anything to hide? That's a pernicious question. I think I'm probably about 99.9% safe. Indeed, I'm innocent. But if I were arrested tomorrow, shipped to Guantanamo or Syria or Pakistan, and tortured, without access to a lawyer or a court hearing or a phone to call my family, I'm not sure what I'd do, and as I'm sure you're aware, a number of innocent people (who had, for example, the same name as some famous terrorist or other) have already been in that situation. I don't think torturing them has made us any safer, but we did it anyway. I just think that's wrong.