Nope, try actually answering the question.

What's the difference between:

"that what Cheney is seeking is, in fact, the ability to torture someone."

and

allow the president the right to grant the CIA the authority to use torture in extreme circumstances where the prisoner may have information that would keep Americans from being killed.

There is no difference, because "extreme circumstances" and "where the prisoner may have information that would keep Americans killed" are vague and would be (and have been) applied fairly indiscriminately.

---

_______________________________________________

It appears yo may be looking at my posts from two different threads on similar topics. This one and the one on Cheney and torture. I never responded to whether I thought what Cheney was doing was OK or not. Your very first question to me on the subject was:

Armytriguy has mentioned that he believes there's a difference between torture and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading," conditions, I think. I would love to hear from him what constitutes torture, and what only constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and if he really expects us to believe that people running a secret prison somewhere are going to recognize and respect the difference.

I responded with my feelings on what constitutes torture and that I don't feel we are engaging in these particular acts.

Well I haven't exactly said what I felt was the difference between torture and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading," conditions. I will tell you what I think "torture" is and I would bet a months pay the US does not do any of these.

# Medical experimentation

# Crucifixion

# Hammering nails into the fingers and hands

# Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife

# Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes

# Branding with a hot iron

# Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch

# Pouring boiling water into the victim's rectum

# Nailing the tongue to a wooden board

# Extracting teeth with pliers

# Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

These were some of the ways Saddam treated his prisoners. And by the way there was no oversight agency reporting on what was going on either as Ken seems to think is a must.

This last comment was not in answer to whether or not I felt Cheney was seeking the ability to torture someone because that is not what you asked.



Now in this most recent discussion I do think you are using semantics with your comment about Cheney seeking the ability to torture someone. Torture is one of those emotional words that gets everyone fired up. The fact is he is only asking for an exemption for the CIA and give the president the right to grant the CIA the ability in extreme circumstances. If you want to know whether or not I think this is OK I would answer yes. I think in extreme cases if there is the chance that a prisoner/detainee has information that would save American lives then I think it is neccessary. I do not think that what Cheney is asking for is the ability to do the things I mentioned above. I would not feel good if we did to the prisoners the same thing Saddam did.

The first talks about actually torturing someone. The second talks about having authority that protects POTUS against allegations of torture and prevents partisan witchhunts on the issue.

If Congress wants to impeach POTUS, they don't need this law. They can impeach him for having sex with his wife should they so desire.

The first talks about actually torturing someone. The second talks about having authority that protects POTUS against allegations of torture

By making it legal to actually torture someone. You really have been reading to much Elwood, Art.

prevents partisan witchhunts on the issue.

Give it a rest with the witchhunt bit, already. You sound ridiculous.

If Congress wants to impeach POTUS, they don't need this law. They can impeach him for having sex with his wife should they so desire.

Earth to Art: WTF are you talking about?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Torture is one of those emotional words that gets everyone fired up.

Yeah, there's a reason for that. And there's a reason why Cheney isn't lobbying Congress for the authority to torture detainees, but only to treat them cruelly, inhumanely, and degradingly. And somehow I'm the one abusing semantics.

If you want to know whether or not I think this is OK I would answer yes. I think in extreme cases if there is the chance that a prisoner/detainee has information that would save American lives then I think it is neccessary. I do not think that what Cheney is asking for is the ability to do the things I mentioned above.

So you think torture is OK in extreme circumstances, but not the specific means of torture Saddam used, which you don't think the Administration wants to use, anyway. What forms of torture do you think the administration is seeking, ATG? And why are they less objectionable to you than Saddam's methods? (We can talk about what exactly "extreme circumstances" are, and who gets to define them, and how it would be possible to hold people accountable for abusing the definition later, if you like.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The only way to enforce such a restriction on Presidential power is via impeachment. Impeachment is a political, not a legal action. They can impeach POTUS today for torture. They don't need this law.

This is Congress trying to erode Executive authority. POTUS should oppose it, like the War Powers Act and other such Congressional actions. Should Congress get a 2/3 majority, so be it.

Should someone actually try to imprison a future POTUS after impeachment or after he leaves office, the Supreme Court would get to weigh in on whether Congress usurped Executive Authority in violation of the Constitution. That would be a fun Constitutional crisis to put the country through.

Hopefully the law will die a peaceful death.

Life is complicated. POTUS, like Congress, needs all sorts of authority that we pray will never be used.

I am trying to think of a POTUS during my adult life that significant politcal powers didn't try to impeach or imprison or both. Can't think of one off hand. Maybe Carter. We don't really need more vehicles for such actions.

I take it back. It isn't that you're reading too many of Elwood's posts, it's obviously that you're just smoking way too much crack.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I know how you like to write rules for every situation Vitus, but sometimes that just doesn't work.

What you are proposing is that POTUS have the authority to start a nuclear war, but not have the authority to authorize torture.

If you trust POTUS with the first, why can't you trust POTUS with the second?

I know how you like to write rules for every situation Vitus, but sometimes that just doesn't work.

What I like is for near-universal standards of human decency to be accepted, Art, and that precludes such things as torture. (I know, there goes holier-than-thou Vitus, spouting off about morality, again.)

What you are proposing is that POTUS have the authority to start a nuclear war, but not have the authority to authorize torture.

I do NOT propose that the president (is there a reason you always refer to POTUS? It's like reading message traffic again.) has the authority to start a nuclear war. I don't recognize any such authority, and neither does your favorite document, the Constitution.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You got me there. He can't start a nuclear war. He can only launch nuclear weapons.

Art, the longer this goes on, the more trio-jeepy's complaint about inanity rings true.

Are you really saying that because the president is entrusted with our nuclear weapons, any other legal restictions on his power are nonsensical?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Art if you can't see the simple difference between a person who leaks the name of an American undercover operative for political gain and a person who blows the whistle on Government misdeeds, then theres no point continuing with this inane debate.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I can do that.

The out of control spending, enabled by the Republican Party, is a violation of decency that threatens the financial stability of the country.

So you trust POTUS with atomic bombs, but not a checkbook?!

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes. You nailed that one.

"So you trust POTUS with atomic bombs, but not a checkbook?!"

That surprises you? Less taxes and smaller federal govt, but strong Commander in Chief doesn't sound that far off for a conservative to me.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, thank God I am not a neoconservative.

You can count on a politcian of any party to use the checkbook early and often. They don't have the courage to use the nuclear weapons.

They also seem to use torture early and often, which is why we trust the president to control nuclear missiles but not to authorize torture.

---

_______________________________________________

"They also seem to use torture early and often" this said in response to: "You can count on a politcian of any party to use the checkbook early and often"

You really mean to say politicians use torture early and often or are you just exagerrating for the purpose of getting back to an argument about torture?

I don't think anyone has asked for permission to authorize torture, just protection that would allow the CIA to explore methods involving things that might be offensive but might not constitute torture. I think we've all agreed that there are things that fall short of torture that might still be considered demeaning. Maybe not, maybe you think anything that is demeaning is torture.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You really mean to say politicians use torture early and often or are you just exagerrating for the purpose of getting back to an argument about torture?

What I mean is that the CIA/military seems to be using it, presumably under the direction from the administration. And no, I'm not talking about naked pyramids, I'm talking about prisoners beaten to death both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Couple that with secret prisons in foeign countries, Bush asking Gonzalez whether US treatment of prisoners amounts to torutre, Cheney asking for an exemption for the CIA to torture... all that adds up to a picture of an administration that wants to play fast and loose with the rules of human decency (not to mention international treaties) so long as it's dealing with non-uniformed prisoners because some might be terrorists.

I dont think you can rationalize torture in any circumstance (not the least because it yields untrustworthy imformation) but I don't buy for a minute Art's spin that they want an exemption for the CIA to torture in some drastic case which hopefully will never happen - I think they want cover so the CIA can keep doing what it's doing in its secret prisons.



I don't think anyone has asked for permission to authorize torture, just protection that would allow the CIA to explore methods involving things that might be offensive but might not constitute torture. I think we've all agreed that there are things that fall short of torture that might still be considered demeaning. Maybe not, maybe you think anything that is demeaning is torture.


We're not talking about demeaning, we're talking about "cruel, degrading, and inhuman" (or was it "inhumane"?) treatment. So far we've established that Cheney is not talking about sleep deprivation or ripping up the Koran. And ATG is sure that even though rape, pouring boiling water down the throat, scorpoin and bee stinging etc.. would fall under "cruel, degrading, and inhuman" he's pretty sure Cheney doesn't want the CIA to do that. But what I haven't seen is an example of what Cheney wants to the CIA to be able to do. What is "cruel, degrading, and inhuman" but not torture?

---

_______________________________________________

"But what I haven't seen is an example of what Cheney wants to the CIA to be able to do. What is "cruel, degrading, and inhuman" but not torture?"

I don't know what that list would entail, but I think the point is that there might be legitimate tools there that would be ruled out by the fairly general nature of the language. For instance, there is plenty of degrading behaviour that might not be torture. Also, it is quite easy to imagine that telling someone their beliefs are false could be argued as being cruel.

"What I mean is that the CIA/military seems to be using it, presumably under the direction from the administration."

I think that's a vast overgeneralization. I haven't seen any evidence that the CIA is torturing anyone in these "secret prisons." We have seen some limited examples of torture or, more accurately, unacceptable conduct in Army prisons, but they have been addressed. I'm not sure it's accurate to suggest that this conduct is widespread.

"Bush asking Gonzalez whether US treatment of prisoners amounts to torutre"

That's the job of a White House Counsel. Plus, if I remember correctly, what Gonzalez commented on was whether or not the Geneva Conventions applied to the detainees.

"all that adds up to a picture of an administration that wants to play fast and loose with the rules of human decency (not to mention international treaties) so long as it's dealing with non-uniformed prisoners because some might be terrorists. "

Sounds more like an Administration that wants to pursue everything that falls within the law. Also, that last sentence is misleading. We are not rounding up random people on the chance that some of them might be terrorists, and you know it. We are rounding up people we believe to be terrorists based on their actions or intelligence.

"So far we've established that Cheney is not talking about sleep deprivation or ripping up the Koran"

That's fine that we've established that here, but if the law applies to the CIA, then who's to stop someone from making the argument that sleep deprivation is cruel or that ripping up the Koran is degrading?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

From what I understand, that is a big part of the problem with the legislation. It is very vague.

Vague legislation results in Court's deciding what the legislation actually means. No Administration is going to support having judges determine foreign policy after the fact.

I don't know what that list would entail, but I think the point is that there might be legitimate tools there that would be ruled out by the fairly general nature of the language. For instance, there is plenty of degrading behaviour that might not be torture. Also, it is quite easy to imagine that telling someone their beliefs are false could be argued as being cruel.

There is an international treaty against torture. Any legitimate interrogation technique short of that is legal, is it not? The only purpose of Cheney's amendment is to allow the CIA to violate the ban on torture. (it's worth noting that some here admit to this, but think it's justifiable if it's done with the goal of saving American lives)

---

_______________________________________________

I am one of those who feels that anything we can do to save American lives is fair game. More to the point of your issue however was already answered by slowguy below. Its like the gun ownership debate. If someone breaks into my house and I feel threatened I could call the police. On the other hand I could shoot them because I felt if I waited for the police to arrive my family would be dead. There is no question what I would choose.


I don't think anyone has asked for permission to authorize torture, just protection that would allow the CIA to explore methods involving things that might be offensive but might not constitute torture. I think we've all agreed that there are things that fall short of torture that might still be considered demeaning. Maybe not, maybe you think anything that is demeaning is torture.